Skip to main content

For those of you who do not live in the NY tri-state area, this show is the business and this episode of an interview with Dr. Joy DeGruy is excellent. This is what I cut my teeth on growing up, this and of course "Soul Train"   Maybe we could discuss this since some aren't ready for the melanin talk.

Part 1: http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/video?id=7314514
Part 2: http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/video?id=7314524
Part 3: http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/video?id=7314525
Part 4: http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/video?id=7314526
Part 5: http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/video?id=7314527
Part 6: http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/video?id=7314528
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

THANKS YEMMY! I have really appreciated this woman's efforts since i saw her during a 2 day workshop on diversity in the workplace back in 2001 or 2002. She was just beginning to discuss Post Traumatic Slavery Syndrome. She was known as Dr. Joy Degruy-Leary back then and she was teaching/living in oregon, I believe.


 I'm so glad to see her acknowledge that african american health can suffer just from living black with a euro ethnic majority. We always hear that high rates of hypertension, diabetes, stroke, kidney disease etc is 100% our fault because "we eat soul food" or some rationale like that.


 Bless you Yemaya for real for posting these clips
We of the topics in our call for papers in the Black Theology Group at the American Academy of Religion this year is PTS(lavery)D:

Black Theology Group

This Group invites papers and panel proposals that will contribute to the following topics: 1) A joint panel with the Religion, Holocaust, and Genocide Group around the theme of creative responses to historic and contemporary forms of (racial, ethnic, religious) genocide and trauma - such as the challenges of prison-industrial complex, PTS(lavery)D, Maafa remembrances, and other communal emotional trauma.

You're welcome NSpirit. Like It is is now on abc's website... so wherever you are you can watch it. It is an excellent show!
Why must the call for papers include the Holocaust? Don't we have enough documentation to substantiate the damage Maafa, slavery and Jim Crow did to black people in the New World for it to stand on its own without discussing the Holocaust? I am very frustrated with this constant pairing of these two genocidal events. Although the very people who may have died in the Holocaust are most likely the descendants and relatives of the people who profitted from the slave trade. I make no alowance for religious differences, white is white.
Ok  that's off my chest.

Basically, EbonyRose, I'm trying to find out what health/spiritual/nature based benefits there are to being black. There has to be something to it because white people are very obsessed with being black in color and in actions at least from my own observations. I think that would also apply to the tangible benefits for Black people if we had knowledge of our own bodies and how we work. But we can talk about that on the thread....
Someone I was talking to on Sunday mentioned this particular broadcast and I thought I'd share it here with y'all because Dr. DeGruy is so well known among black people, at least she should be anyways. I enjoyed the show. She was very insightful and with all the white folks who have been going crazy since November 2008 about Barack Obama becoming president, she is definitely on point with her commentary on that.
Oh I see!  Well ... I can answer that one for ya ... the answer to that is just plain ol' envy

Seriously, though ... one thing I am always struck by as I watch and read stuff that has to do with White people's interactions with Black people (especially in their attempts to help Africans in African countries .. and as we've seen recently with the disaster in Haiti) ... is their amazement at our people's ability to be happy and resilient and appreciative and loving even while living through the worst conditions imaginable.

They're (White's) expectations usually that are that of encountering a broken and beaten down, possibly hostile and/or violent group of people who for so long been mistreated and abused (by them and sometimes their own people) .. but what they usually find is just the opposite!   And many of them will be honest enough to say so.

Black people have many, many inbred qualities that White people have historically lacked, most of a nurturing/moral/just nature that White people would like to be able to emulate.  Not to mention our internal natural linkage with music/rhythm/soul!    You talk about "Soul Train" ... you watch a couple of old reruns of "American Bandstand" and watch how those poor White children used to throw themselves around the floor trying to catch a beat! 

Now they're winning step contests!    But that's another thread, too!

Anyway, I'm only halfway through Joy's interview, so, I'll wait to comment on that until after I'm through.  But, on the "Melanin" issue ... I suppose if their were any benefit to it, that would be great!!  I know it certainly helped our ancestors survive the horror that was Southern slavery ... even though they were made slaves expressly because of it.

But, as far as being something White people want ...   I dunno about that.

Black Theology Group

This Group invites papers and panel proposals that will contribute to the following topics: 1) A joint panel with the Religion, Holocaust, and Genocide Group around the theme of creative responses to historic and contemporary forms of (racial, ethnic, religious) genocide and trauma - such as the challenges of prison-industrial complex, PTS(lavery)D, Maafa remembrances, and other communal emotional trauma.---kresge

I am always curious why 'Identity' does seem to be addressed...at any level.

I know your group's focus is religion.

Yet...Churches focused on the African American-American population NEVER address Identity...except to reference 'us' by (societal) color.

Do you have a perspective?

PEACE

Jim Chester
Yemaya:

You may know I am seriously supportive of Dr. DeGruy's conclusions.

I have determined her, and Dr. Cress-Welsing to have created the basic tools for dismantling America's color-conspiracy against African American-Americans.

Dr. Cress-Welsing would say further that it is a conspiracy for self-preservation...of the European.

No too long ago, there were postings challenging her conclusions.

That hasn't happened...on this site...for a long time on this site.

I think Dr. DeGruy is a legend in her own time.

PEACE

Jim Chester
Reference:
I am always curious why 'Identity' does seem to be addressed...at any level. I know your group's focus is religion. Yet...Churches focused on the African American-American population NEVER address Identity...except to reference 'us' by (societal) color. Do you have a perspective? PEACE Jim Chester
Jim,
I we have had this conversation before, and I think that we will have to agree to disagree. The use of the word black in black theology is not about color, it is an existential, ontological, phenomenological category. It is not a political category (such as nationality).

That said, there are any number of African American Churches that emphasize African identity. For example, there is the Pan African Orthodox Church of Christ. Among mainline AA churches, you have the African Methodist Episcopal and African Methodist Episcopal Zion Churches. There are numerous African Baptist Churches around the country. There is First Afrikan Church outside Atlanta, and I could go on and on.
That said, there are any number of African American Churches that emphasize African identity.---kresge

 It's not about 'color' in any other societal context either.  But I don't think we'll ever get our dear Mr. Chester to agree to disagree about that!---EbonyRose

I really appreciate you guys indulging me.

'black' is a color.

There is no other context in which it is valid...EXCEPT

AS A SOCIETAL REFERENCE TO PEOPLE OF AFRICAN ANCESTRY.

In fact, the term is so undefined that confusion dominates when people of different nationalities are in the same room.

In such cases, 'black' becomes whatever the current speaker demands it means.

Wow!!!

What specificity!!!

As an example:  The people of India of the same complexion.

To personify:  The golfer guy.

Our African American churches put 'African' in their names, but will fight you if you tell them they are African American.

We delude ourselves to try to come up with a contrivance that 'black' is not about color.

But...that is indeed a conclusion we are entitled to reason individually.

I just cannot allow that language to go unchallenged as a part of the hegemony of the society I live in.

What it is.

PEACE

Jim Chester
Reference:
There is no other context in which it is valid...EXCEPT

AS A SOCIETAL REFERENCE TO PEOPLE OF AFRICAN ANCESTRY.
With all due respect, Mr. Chester ....

It's only a matter of your opinion that 'there is no other context" in which the word 'black' "is valid except as a societal reference."  In the opinion of others ... many, many others, in fact, the word 'black' - as a societal reference - carries a much different context than that of simply a 'color'.

That's not to validate nor invalidate either opinion.  However, one does not discount the other simply by virtue of belonging to one and not the other or because they are different.

The both have their respective values.  And their own individual sense of validity.

In other words, though we disagree about the context in which the word 'black' is used as a societal reference, it doesn't mean you nor I are right ...or that you nor I are wrong.  It also doesn't mean that your nor my opinion is any more or less valid or invalid.

It simply means they are different.  And neither one of us has entitlement to the  validity of our differing opinions over the other.

It is, what I believe, is referred to as an "impasse."  "Irreconcilable differences", maybe.  But definitely not either right or wrong.

It's just ..... what it is. 
It simply means they are different.  And neither one of us has entitlement to the  validity of our differing opinions over the other.

It is, what I believe, is referred to as an "impasse."  "Irreconcilable differences", maybe.  But definitely not either right or wrong.

It's just ..... what it is.---EbonyRose

Of course, you're right..but...

Each of us....each of us...is empowered to determine our individual identity.

When this task is left to others, they will make you what they want you to be...to meet their own ends...not your's.

Indeed, it is what it is.

Dr. DeGruy makes this point repeatedly.

It is our own application of societal mores in the manner others prescribe..., and we apply them to ourselves.

To our detriment.

It is a given that 'black' is a societal application to assign definition of to people who are not European.

I say that because 'black' was applied to Asians, e.g. Indians.

'Little Black Sambo' was a story about an Indian child...not an African American-American child.

European Americans made that application, and taught it to me in PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

In the end, however, the ONLY specificity of 'black' is as a color.

Whether societal, or otherwise, 'black' has no specificity...no specificity...in any context...EXCEPT...as a color.

What it is.

PEACE

Jim Chester

Reference:  By JWC
Each of us....each of us...is empowered to determine our individual identity.

Well, I dunno about that, JWC.  It seems to me that while you say that each of us is empowered to determine our own individual identity you are not happy with the identity that some people have chosen for themselves!  And, even more, would prefer that they choose an identity of your choosing, instead of their own!

White people - excuse me, European Americans - have called us whatever they wanted to call us for centuries, now!  And, I think probably about the only thing we actually agree on about this is that they, indeed, have no right to define/identify us as a people!

Such identification, IMO, is irrelevant and besides the point of anything important.  So, let them say what they want to ... at this point, their opinion doesn't count!

As you know, back in the '60s, the declaration of "Black" as an identity was a SELF-declaration!!  We didn't adopt the word "Black" as an identity because that's what White people wanted to call us or even what they wanted us to call ourselves!  In fact, it was widely accepted at the time that the word "Negro" was the politically-correct definition of the day.

"Black" was our SELF-declaration of SELF-identity.  The opinion of *others* regarding that was irrelevant.  We took pride in, claimed it, owned it, and demanded that all due and necessary respect be given to it.  Even though it scared the bejeezus out of the Europeans, they did, in fact, adhere to that demand.

As I've said before, I consider "Black" and "African American" wholly interchangeable ... although "Black" does have a more far reaching inclusion of all African people.  "African American" is specific to us in this country as a nationality.  But there are Black people all over this world!

For me, Black is much easier/faster to say/type than African American which is why I use it more often.  It has nothing to do with my lack of self-identity - I know full well who and what I am - ... and everything to do with efficiency.  Period.  You can read more into it if you wish ... but there simply isn't any more to it than that.

The (self-) declaration of being "Black .... and proud" had nothing ... let me repeat - NOTHING - to do with *color* ... to those who declared it with the intent of SELF-identification.  It was (and still is) a state of mind, a state of being and a state of belonging - regardless of any alternate interpretation by or for White folks.  We didn't care what they thought then ... and seemingly care even less about it now!

People, like me, who SELF-identify as "Black" are NOT confused about who they are.  And in fact, I would surmise that we're much more securing in our identity than a lot of other folks, especially throughout the Diaspora, who somehow look in the mirror at their dark skin and still deny their African roots!  Not that is what you call confusion! 

However ...what I also find somewhat confusing is if, as you say, "Each of us....each of us...is empowered to determine our individual identity", but yet, in the same breath you condemn someone's choice of individual self-identification as mistaken identity, misinformed opinion or an invalid choice simply because don't like/prefer that identity for yourself ... how do you reconcile that? 

Do we have our own individual choice or not?  And is our choice somehow wrong/invalid/incorrect just because you don't think it's appropriate?
Do we have our own individual choice or not?  And is our choice somehow wrong/invalid/incorrect just because you don't think it's appropriate?---EbonyRose

Somehow, you continue to insist my disagreement with a conclusion is denial of the right to personal choice.

That is no correct, but I can't fix it.

As I've said before, I consider "Black" and "African American" wholly interchangeable ... although "Black" does have a more far reaching inclusion of all African people.  "African American" is specific to us in this country as a nationality.  But there are Black people all over this world!---EbonyRose

Okay.

Your statement does deny what you are saying, however.

If 'black' is applicable to people all over the world, African American...being interchangeable as you've said... is applicable to the same people...all over the world.

But anyone is entitled to call that their interpretation.

There is contradiction within itself.

Identity should be applicable to a specific...and exclusive group...without exception.

Agreed?

Jim Chester
Reference:
Agreed?

Not really. 

IMO, being Black is inclusive of being African American. When speaking of African-descended people in this country, the two are completely interchangeable.

However, that door doesn't swing both ways.  Not all Black people are African American.  When speaking of African-descended people of Jamaican nationality, for example, African American would not appropriately define them.
JWC,


All this time, I did not realize that you consider dark skinned Asians, Indians, (Vijay Singh), as Black and thus you don't view BLACK as meaning AFRICAN AMERICAN or AFRICAN exclusively.


I can remember during my undergrad years at an HBCU in the south, there were Jordanian, Indian, and other students with skin darker than me (and i'm very brown) but i never considered them BLACK, just dark.  


If Dark INdians and DArk Asians and Dark Italians and "Black Irish" are called black by some small group of white people, i could see how one could become focused on the "color" aspect of identity. 


For some reason, i have never thought of these groups as "black" or "AFRO" or "AFRICAN" so using Black interchangeably with AFRICAN AMERICAN feels natural to me.  BLACK for me carries a social-cultural-political message about my identity as a person of African descent born in America.


BLACK is not about Color to me
Black is about experience.


but! now that you've explained the origin of little black sambo, and included dark skinned asians, etc in your rationale, i see more clearly why you feel the need to diffrentiate.  I don't think i agree...but i see
IMO, being Black is inclusive of being African American. When speaking of African-descended people in this country, the two are completely interchangeable.

However, that door doesn't swing both ways.  Not all Black people are African American.  When speaking of African-descended people of Jamaican nationality, for example, African American would not appropriately define them.---EbonyRose

Ergo....

'black' is not sufficient to define...describe,yes...define, no.

Identity must be valid wherever the term is used.

'black' isn't.

African American is.

PEACE

Jim Chester
but! now that you've explained the origin of little black sambo, and included dark skinned asians, etc in your rationale, i see more clearly why you feel the need to diffrentiate.  I don't think i agree...but i see---Nspirit

I know the feeling.

I taught my children that'black' is 'who' we are.

It is that failure that has driven to learn to define the difference.

All those folks your went to school with are actually...,and really...Caucasian just as Europeans are.

Europeans determined their 'color' to be the distinguishing attribute of Caucasian.

Europeans say: White is the definition of Caucasian.

The (societal) color-construction is the creation of Europeans.

I often say, 'They are 'white' only when we are in the room.'

When they are alone with each other, they define themselves by their ancestral nationality...like everybody else...EXCEPT US OF COURSE.

We STILL insist that our skin-color is 'who' we are.

We have been conditioned well.

Dr. DeGruy is right.

Dr. Cress-Welsing is right.

The choice remains our's to make...individually.

PEACE

Jim Chester

Last edited by James Wesley Chester
This is a good discussion.

The program reminds me of a program that used to run on PBS.

I am forgetting the name right now...senior moment??

I don't get this show locally.

I don't think, but I will look for it.

I once inivited a (keynote) speaker to an observance of African American National Heritage Day...third Sunday in August.

She was/is a professor at Temple.

She told interesting experiences with Dr. Asante.

Apparently, he forced her out of the African American Studies Department...for less than good reasons...according to her.

Politics...academic or otherwise.

PEACE

Jim Chester

PEACE

Jim Chester

Add Reply

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