Skip to main content

Does anyone else find it a bit odd that some would now try to call Malcolm X (and other black historical leaders) "conservative" when, as in Malcolm's case, he argued for revolution - an overthrow of the social, political, economic, and cultural foundations of the country?

Now what exactly about that is "conservative"? Confused

© MBM

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

MBM,

It's the Grasp At Straws that ideological BASTARDS must do if they are ever going to be seen and see themselves as legitimate.

I've heard W.E.B. DuBois called, flatly, a "conservative" by these "I'm a conservative, but I'm not a Republican (I hope that makes a difference even though my articulation and core views don't)" Tormented Types like CF.

They're like the fatherless child in the kindergarten class on "What Does Your Dad Do?" Day going up and pushing a kid making a presentation about his father, taking the podium screaming, "This is my Daddy (too)!" when he knows he's a BASTARD in natural, ORGANIC terms, and that he is the Not-So-Immaculate Conception of WHITE CONSERVATIVES.

It's funny how the shame of their ideology and disconnected ramblings make them want to disown their own Test Tube Daddy's. They know they were "Born In A Laboratory"... (in WHITE THINK TANKS and/or in the recesses of disconnected, non-centered "Black" sentiments).

But, of course, we know it's hard to square CF's claim that Garvey, Malcolm X and Farrakhan are "conservative" in any wholistic sense of that word that would make him comparable to him.

Now, when he can name a modern Black CONservative, Card Carrying or not, that WHITE AMERICA tries to undermine or try to get other Black people to denounce or speak out against in any manner like they did Garvey or Malcolm or even Farrakhan... then he might be able to make a comparison that's worth something.
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
Does anyone else find it a bit odd that some would now try to call Malcolm X (and other black historical leaders) "conservative" when, as in Malcolm's case, he argued for revolution - an overthrow of the social, political, economic, and cultural foundations of the country?

Now what exactly about that is "conservative"? Confused


MBM,

With so little to go on - Haley's book and a collection of his speeches - I imagine it would be hard to pin down exactly the politics of Malcolm X. Add that to the fact that he never reached his 40th birthday, a milestone after which many of us finally settle on a single political and social ideology, and that, about the time of his murder, his politics were in a high state of flux.

Then again, didn't Malcolm X call on blacks to do for themselves (a pre-requisite for any separatist view) and stop accepting handouts from the white establishment? Hmmm... that sounds a lot like the ideology of a "paleo-conservative" to me.
.
.
.
"Does anyone else find it a bit odd that some would now try to call Malcolm X (and other black historical leaders) "conservative" when, as in Malcolm's case, he argued for revolution - an overthrow of the social, political, economic, and cultural foundations of the country?

Now what exactly about that is "conservative"? by MBM,

****************************

With so little to go on - Haley's book and a collection of his speeches - I imagine it would be hard to pin down exactly the politics of Malcolm X. Add that to the fact that he never reached his 40th birthday, a milestone after which many of us finally settle on a single political and social ideology, and that, about the time of his murder, his politics were in a high state of flux.

Then again, didn't Malcolm X call on blacks to do for themselves (a pre-requisite for any separatist view) and stop accepting handouts from the white establishment? Hmmm... that sounds a lot like the ideology of a "paleo-conservative" to me." by EgbertSouse

************************
Indeed, EgbertSouse, I agree.

In addition, Malcolm X did not play games, he was not sleazy, treasonous, untrustworthy, spineless, etc., etc., like today's elected Black leadership, playing the race card hustling Black poverty pimps, and/or many of the Black middleclass, who choose to give praise to misfits over individuals truly worthy of praise.


"Tensions increased between Malcolm and the Nation of Islam. It was alleged that orders were given by members of the Nation of Islam leadership to kill Malcolm. On February 14, 1965, his home in New York City was firebombed. Malcolm and his family survived. Some say it was done by members of the Nation of Islam. No one has been charged in that crime. A week later on February 21, in Manhattan's Audubon Ballroom, Malcolm had just begun delivering a speech when a disturbance broke out in the crowd of 400. A man yelled, "Get your hand outta my pocket! Don't be messin' with my pockets!" As Malcolm's bodyguards rushed forward to attend to the disturbance, a black man rushed forward and shot Malcolm in the chest with a sawed-off shotgun. Two other men quickly charged towards the stage and fired handguns at Malcolm. Angry on-lookers in the crowd caught and beat the assassins as they attempted to flee the Ballroom. Malcolm X had died at the age of 39." from Wikipedia

Furthermore, the envy, sleaze, and treason within the Nation of Islam, is responsible for the assassination of Malcolm X. The race card hustlers, and the deceitful would prefer to blame the death of Malcolm X on racist Caucasians, but reality speaks strongly to the contrary, in that disgraceful Black people killed Malcolm X!
Last edited {1}
quote:
Then again, didn't Malcolm X call on blacks to do for themselves (a pre-requisite for any separatist view) and stop accepting handouts from the white establishment? Hmmm... that sounds a lot like the ideology of a "paleo-conservative" to me.
Hmmm.... Sounds like someone doesn't know what the HELL he's talking about. Someone who obviously would rather disregard plenty of the knowable things that don't agree with their/your ideology. Those things are as knowable, as accessible as Malcolm's Doctrine of SELF-RELIANCE. And, no, SELF-RELIANCE and responsibility is not Mutually Exclusive with holding others accountable for what they are responsible for. So please, at least stop this telegraphed one-eye open shit.
    "If you are the son of a man who had a wealthy estate and you inherit your father's estate, you have to pay off the debts that your father incurred before he died. The only reason that the present generation of white Americans are in a position of economic strength...is because their fathers worked our fathers for over 400 years with no pay...We were sold from plantation to plantation like you sell a horse, or a cow, or a chicken, or a bushel of wheat...All that money...is what gives the present generation of American whites the ability to walk around the earth with their chest out...like they have some kind of economic ingenuity.

    "Your father isn't here to pay. My father isn't here to collect. But I'm here to collect and you're here to pay."


    http://socialjustice.ccnmtl.columbia.edu/index.php/Why_...%3F#Malcolm_X

Eggie... We can go down a long list if you want. But we know, this sounds like you're FULL OF SHIT. Whether it's paleo or neo shit... Doesn't matter, it's still shit. And, again, this is very accessible and knowable things about Malcolm X, just as much as the Revolutionary things mentioned in the title post. One does not invalidate the other.

And as far as separatism and the supposed state of "flux" in his views (again a very KNOWABLE thing):
    "We have to keep in mind at all times that we are not fighting for separation.
    We are fighting for recognition as free humans in this society."
Say that with me Eggie... "WE ARE NOT FIGHTING FOR SEPARATION"... though "separation" may be but one way to have "recognition as a free person/people" with full Human Agency, etc.

Again, those things SELF-RELIANCE, self-help... so-called "personal responsibility" do not preclude the calls for JUSTICE via REPARATIONS and other things people like you call "handouts"... Pretty strange twists considering American History.

Anyway, personal responsibility, for one, gives a person a keen awareness of what's NOT their responsibility in terms of things they didn't create or cause. So, taking that type of inventory can, indeed, foster more calls for "handouts" as the TRUTH about who is responsible for what is defined in detail.
It's the Grasp At Straws that ideological BASTARDS must do if they are ever going to be seen and see themselves as legitimate.---Nmaginate

That says it in a nutshell.

The goal is to change the perception of African American-Americans, and others sympathetic to the needs of African America, and compromise those whom these persons see as a value to African America.


It is just another attempt to undermine the structures that can unite us.

PEACE

Jim Chester
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
Does anyone else find it a bit odd that some would now try to call Malcolm X (and other black historical leaders) "conservative" when, as in Malcolm's case, he argued for revolution - an overthrow of the social, political, economic, and cultural foundations of the country?

Now what exactly about that is "conservative"? Confused


MBM:

Who made such a claim?

What is a "Black Conservative"?

Malcolm X, as I do, believed in the power of CULTURE. He talked about self-dicipline. He said that he did not trust a man who did not have respect enough for time to NOT wear a wrist watch.

He suggested that whorish women clean themselves up rather than HE taking advantage of their advances upon him. He sought to redirect their energies toward CONSTRUCTIVE and PURPOSEFUL END.

It is clear that YOU and NMAGINATE and KEVIN and FAHEEM and others seek to DIVIDE Blacks based on this "Black Conservative" fault line rather than YOU promote what your ideology has done to CHANGE BLACK PEOPLE for the better. (Please note I did not say change America by the introduction of Civil Rights legislation).

Are Black people as a people:

Conscious to an acceptable level?
In A State Of Health to an acceptable level?
Spiritual to an Acceptable level?
More together as a FAMILY UNIT?

If YOUR IDEOLOGY is not able to address BLACK PEOPLE on the INSIDE of the CULTURAL STRUCTURE then it is not an EFFECTIVE STRATEGY for the TRANSFORMATION of Black folks, despite your ability to get WHITE FOLKS to change by producing laws to bond them to the US Constitution.

You initial premise is FRAUDULENT and will only produce a "pissing match" that serves no ultimate purpose.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
Does anyone else find it a bit odd that some would now try to call Malcolm X (and other black historical leaders) "conservative" when, as in Malcolm's case, he argued for revolution - an overthrow of the social, political, economic, and cultural foundations of the country?

Now what exactly about that is "conservative"?


Who made such a claim?

What is a "Black Conservative"?
You did! By the extension of this BULLSHIT:
quote:
quote:
Can you name one black conservative who has done jack shit for the black community?
PLEASE DEFINE WHAT A "BLACK CONSERVATIVE" IS AND I WILL GLADLY DO SO FOR YOU.

CONVERSELY - Do you think that Louis Farrahkan is a "Black Liberal"?
You went on to try to create this picture by begging a SEE THROUGH picture:
quote:
Again I ask "Was Malcolm X a Black Liberal? Is Louis F a Black Liberal?"

What were their views on gay marriage? Welfare? Mental Dependency in general?

What about Marcus Garvey? The man who arguably was able to MOBILIZE BLACK FOLKS into an organization that changed their consciousness for the better more than any other Black man to date. Was HE a Black Lib?
And, as I say to "Them WHITE BOYS" you SELF-FUCKED yourself when you said this:
Since the opposite of conservative in it's common use is "liberal" I asked you if you believed that Garvey, X and Farrakhan were "Black Liberals"?

Ummm.... How Do You Say? CONVERSELY that means the opposite of Liberal is Conservative, by your very equation. So when you say:
Malcolm X, as I do, believed in the power of CULTURE.

It is readily TRANSPARENT that you were indeed trying to say Malcolm X Et Al were CONSERVATIVE who were or are like YOU. And, NOTE, in this thread MBM said nothing about A Black CONservative. Again, his question was:
Does anyone else find it a bit odd that some would now try to call Malcolm X (and other black historical leaders) "CONSERVATIVE" when, as in Malcolm's case, he argued for revolution - an overthrow of the social, political, economic, and cultural foundations of the country?

Now, there is absolutely no reason, from that for you to talk about Black Conservatives. He asked if Malcolm's REVOLUTIONARY views are consistent with being "conservative". PERIOD. So all that BS you just posted trying to change the subject from the focus of the question is not going to work.

Here is the question one more time:
[How can anyone] call Malcolm X (and other black historical leaders) "CONSERVATIVE" when he argued for revolution - an overthrow of the social, political, economic, and cultural foundations of the country?

Either you have COMMENTS ON THE ACTUAL SUBJECT or you don't. Since you find it hard to engage the subject directly, honestly and with INTEGRITY... Spare yourself and spare us and just STFU!!
quote:
Originally posted by EgbertSouse:

Then again, didn't Malcolm X call on blacks to do for themselves (a pre-requisite for any separatist view) and stop accepting handouts from the white establishment? Hmmm... that sounds a lot like the ideology of a "paleo-conservative" to me.


"DO FOR SELF" - can someone please explain how this is a conservative trait? Certainly you are not infering that conservatives do not go to the government with their hands out because they do so all the time. One need only look to the war in Iraq, protectionism, tarrifs, subsidies, Halliburton, Cheney's secret energy policy meetings, tax cuts to the rich, Enron, corporate bankruptcy law, federal bailouts (i.e. Chrysler) etc., etc., etc. to see that so called conservatives are just as likely (if not more) to look to government with their hands out as anyone else.

Apparently you're OK with Halliburton going to the government seeking billions of dollars of NO BID handouts but an individual who has been used/abused by our capitalist system looking to feed their kids is a problem! upset

BTW - back to Malcolm: a principle foundation driving political conservatism is the desire to PRESERVE the past. If you are wealthy white male, for example, you obviously want to preserve the lead in American society that was immorally given to you, therefore you are a conservative. What do you think Malcolm wanted to PRESERVE about American society? Confused
quote:
Are Black people as a people:

Conscious to an acceptable level?
In A State Of Health to an acceptable level?
Spiritual to an Acceptable level?
More together as a FAMILY UNIT?
And your type of CONSERVATIVISM has done what on either count?

What is the CONSCIOUSNESS of CONSERVATIVISM in the Black Community? Ummm... From Garvey to Malcolm to Farrakhan, etc. in terms of a Consciousness there was and is something TANGIBLE that we can point to in terms of how they have had a positive effect on "Black Consciousness"... For YOUR TYPE OF CONSERVATIVISM... what is the Consciousness -- of pride, history or CULTURE even -- that YOUR TYPE OF CONSERVATIVISM has infused in the Black Community? (Again, by your definition you are the opposite of "Liberal" and even a Black Lib.)

Note, it takes absolutely no thought as to what their contribution was to Black Consciousness. And ummm... Where is your UNIA? I think I asked you about your Black Star Lines. You know, you did have some EMPTY RHETORIC about "leaving"... And you couldn't back that shit up either.

It must be lonely to be an Ideological BASTARD. A Philosophical Test Tube Baby trying to act like your shit is "natural" and has a history that should garner respect. No, my POSER brother... you and yours have to EARN IT.

So you play games all you want. But you knew from the very beginning what you had to say was BULLSHIT. You endorse a political CONSERVATISM that is adverse to the Politics of those mentionables. Theirs were socially, perhaps even economically conservative, but that's a huge difference from your Political Conservativism, whether you're a Black Conservative or not.

So a definition of a Black Conservative is IRRELEVANT to this discussion. Was Malcolm X Et Al, when considering the whole of his/their views, flatly, and without equivocation (your fallacious issue here) CONSERVATIVE.

The answer is a FLAT no!
You for one don't want the type of REVOLUTION he talked about which was a strategy that was BOTH internal and external, by definition.
quote:
What do you think Malcolm wanted to PRESERVE about American society?



MBM - Again - Who said that Malcolm X was a "Black Conservative"?

What is a "Black Conservative"?

Can you detail any people who you call "Black Conservatives" who would like to see slavery return? His family members continue to face discrimination and abuse by the police?

It is safe to say that, for example in the long running debate between Kevin and myself - Kevin believes that Affirmative Action is worthy of primary focus as a means to have more Blacks to enter college WHILE I believe that more Blacks could enter college if the community were to take more ownership of it's schools as I factor in the downside of AA, that being that it requires WHITE FOLKS to go along with it for Blacks to make use of this program. Is it fair to say (I am asking for your objectivity here) that both Kevin and I have the BEST INTERESTS of the Black community in mind. We just disagree on TACTICS?

While Kevin CLAIMS that "I support the withdrawl of a policy that has doubled the number of Blacks who have entered college" this CLAIM that he makes is nothing more than him BLAMING ME for acknowledging a FLAW in his strategy and thus I am part of the adversarial group when I don't join in on the protests for AA but instead propose a more COMPREHENSIVE strategy.
quote:
MBM - Again - Who said that Malcolm X was a "Black Conservative"?
That was NOT the question. (Rephrased) This was:
[How can anyone] call Malcolm X (and other black historical leaders) "CONSERVATIVE" when he argued for revolution - an overthrow of the social, political, economic, and cultural foundations of the country?

And, yes, you tried to call him "CONSERVATIVE" by saying this:
  • Since the opposite of conservative in it's common use is "liberal" I asked you if you believed that Garvey, X and Farrakhan were "Black Liberals"?
  • Malcolm X, as I do, believed in the power of CULTURE.

    As you suggest, the opposite of Liberal = Conservative. And, as you posed it, since you tried to suggest they were not "Black Liberals" then, CONVERSELY, you tried to paint them as "Black Conservatives".

    So no matter which way you try to Play The Semantics you are caught up by your own words. You have to be White because ain't no Black person that dumb to get caught up like that on a discussion like this... Or, just admit that you are a POSER, Black or White. Full of RHETORIC which is the only thing you can manage because you possess no substance.

    But, let's see if you are man enough to comment on Malcolm's REVOLUTIONARY views...

    But I guess you agree with Malcolm on this too, considering how conservative he was and considered "CULTURE" the way you claim you do or he did:
    "You can't have racism without capitalism. If you find antiracists, usually they're socialists or their political philosophy is that of socialism."

    Now bring on the Noah rant... LOL

    quote:
    There were always, from back to the mid-nineteenth century, conservative Black nationalists who tended to emphasize certain kinds of political positions, such as strict racial separatism, a distrust of dialogue or alliances with progressive white formations. They emphasized African cultural values and supported frequently private economic market mechanisms for group advancement. In other words, they advocated a kind of Black capitalism. These were the more conservative Black nationalists. There was also a more [radical Black nationalist tradition. The revolutionary Black nationalists were inclined to be very critical of capitalism and said that capitalism, as an economic system coming out of Europe, an economic system becoming ensconced in the United States and its tentacles through corporate America going across the world, strangled the possibility of Black liberation and Black development. They tended to be very critical of capitalism.

    Secondly, more revolutionary Black nationalists tended to advocate a more radical version of pan-Africanism. They said, yes, we are an African people and we can unite culturally with our sisters and brothers abroad, but we should also unite politically with them in overthrowing imperialism, overthrowing Western colonialism. So they interpreted Black nationalism in a more radical way. Both are parts of Black nationalism, but they are two different kinds of subtraditions without one overall movement.

    Finally, radical Black nationalists recognized that institutional racism has evolved in direct conjunction with the development and maturation of capitalism in the Western hemisphere over the last four centuries, that it provides the ideological and cultural justification for the continued exploitation and oppression of Black people wherever they may be. So therefore the revolutionary nationalists said it is not enough to fight against racism. You also had to denounce capitalism as well.
    What was Malcolm X again? A CONSERVATION (Black Nationalist) or a REVOLUTIONARY Black Nationalist?

    Ummm.... CF, support your (implicit) assertion.
    quote:
    [*} Since the opposite of conservative in it's common use is "liberal" I asked you if you believed that Garvey, X and Farrakhan were "Black Liberals"?

  • Malcolm X, as I do, believed in the power of CULTURE.
  • I told you they are on the RADICAL HARD [BLACK] LEFT. You know your directions. And that shit ain't on the CONservative side, my dear POSER.

    So, Black Liberals? Well, depends on how you define it. But, needless to say, they despite their philosophical differences with their Accomodationist/Assimilationist Civil Rights type of counterparts, they were On The Same Side. As for too many POLITICAL CONservatives, White or Black, that cannot be said.

    So which are you?

    One Conservative I respect is Wayne Perryman despite whatever I might disagree with him on. VOX and JazzDog here are very respectable people with conservative views. And, given how religious Black folks are or have been, it is no relevation that we have very conservative (social) views.

    Please get a clue, my dear POSER.
  • quote:
    Is it fair to say (I am asking for your objectivity here) that both Kevin and I have the BEST INTERESTS of the Black community in mind. We just disagree on TACTICS?
    BULLSHIT!! Yours is more than a simple disagreement on tactics. If that were so, then, especially with you saying this, you would have long since made peace with your differences with Kevin and moved on.

    When I asked you < H E R E > how to essentially coordinate our efforts and navigate around our differences by install a real (as opposed to RHETORICAL) DEMOCRATIC STRUCTURE... Well, let's just say that wasn't in your BEST INTERESTS to actually engage in a real discussion of things you only subjectively and superficially advocate for.
    quote:
    Originally posted by Constructive Feedback:

    Is it fair to say (I am asking for your objectivity here) that both Kevin and I have the BEST INTERESTS of the Black community in mind.


    Respectfully, in what way have you demonstrated a commitment to the best interests of the black community? Again, respectfully, it seems like your interests are much more aligned with the white commmunity than black. sck
    quote:
    Respectfully, in what way have you demonstrated a commitment to the best interests of the black community? Again, respectfully, it seems like your interests are much more aligned with the white commmunity than black.


    Right now the only "official job" that I have been assigned in the "Black community" has been to be a good father to my two children and to make sure that they are a positive asset to the community.

    Your words do nothing to me as I only choose to adhere to the "gravitational pull" of those who have a more objective measuring device.

    It is interesting how you and others spare no expense at attacking those Black people who's only crime is to DISAGREE WITH YOU while you remain silent or even DEFEND those Blacks who have done MATERIAL HARM to other Black people via their assaults, rapes, robberies, homocides.

    I hold my head up high, my brother, knowing that in the end YOUR ABILITY TO HURL INSULTS AT ME do not change anything about where too many of us stand as a people. The only thing that counts is to measure the EFFECTIVENESS of the dominate ideological understanding in Black America and to see if it is successful at TRANSFORMING BLACK FOLKS rather than just going after WHITE FOLKS when they do wrong. It is clear to me that the EVIDENCE is in front of you as to an answer if you choose to accept the truth, My Brother.
    quote:
    It is interesting how you and others spare no expense at attacking those Black people who's only crime is to DISAGREE WITH YOU while you remain silent or even DEFEND those Blacks who have done MATERIAL HARM to other Black people via their assaults, rapes, robberies, homocides.
    STOP CRYING!

    You rant and rave about the so-called Civil Rights/Black Liberal leadership and, by your definition, they have not committed any "crimes"... They're on fault is that they DISAGREE with you and make your BASTARD ass feel OPPRESSED.

    But it's funny how you don't extend that same Tyranny of the Majority logic beyond the Black Community with direct challenges to America in general along those lines. That might just give you a clue.

    And, again, you are the only one forwarding an EITHER OR "strategy"... Or I should revise that: You are the only one saying, "Let's Wait A While" on one or the other. In other words, quit trying to project your sorry ass state-of-mind on other people who DISAGREE WITH YOU.

    What are you whining for? Why do you spend so much time worrying about "insults" if you position is such that you are secure in it?

    Must be those DEMONS...
    quote:
    Originally posted by Constructive Feedback:

    quote:
    Respectfully, in what way have you demonstrated a commitment to the best interests of the black community? Again, respectfully, it seems like your interests are much more aligned with the white commmunity than black.


    Right now the only "official job" that I have been assigned in the "Black community" has been to be a good father to my two children and to make sure that they are a positive asset to the community.

    Your words do nothing to me as I only choose to adhere to the "gravitational pull" of those who have a more objective measuring device.

    It is interesting how you and others spare no expense at attacking those Black people who's only crime is to DISAGREE WITH YOU while you remain silent or even DEFEND those Blacks who have done MATERIAL HARM to other Black people via their assaults, rapes, robberies, homocides.

    I hold my head up high, my brother, knowing that in the end YOUR ABILITY TO HURL INSULTS AT ME do not change anything about where too many of us stand as a people. The only thing that counts is to measure the EFFECTIVENESS of the dominate ideological understanding in Black America and to see if it is successful at TRANSFORMING BLACK FOLKS rather than just going after WHITE FOLKS when they do wrong. It is clear to me that the EVIDENCE is in front of you as to an answer if you choose to accept the truth, My Brother.


    First, nowhere was I "hurling insults". You asked a question. You asked for an objective answer. I gave it. I apologize that you didn't like the answer.

    Second, you always talk about results and effectiveness, please tell me how your thinking - relying only on changing our attitude - would have gotten us from 1863 to now. If your approach were the only approach, would we be better off now as a people in your opinion? Without petitioning the government for legal changes to civil rights, voting rights, without pushing white people to think of us as human beings as opposed to the mere chattel or 3/5 of a human that we were conceived as prior - would we be better off?

    Third, please consider what you may have seen as an insult. The notion that your interests are more in line with white America's interests is not an insult, per se. You seem to want to hold them blameless in the current condition of the African American community. You ask nothing of them now and place all of the onus on us - even when we are not in control of many of the structural/legal aspects of our liberation. White America fraudently grabs a head start in American society then tries to fix the rules to solidify that lead. You ask nothing of them to adjust things to rememdy that situation. You place all of the responsibility on us - to try to pull even with no assistance. If I'm white - that sounds great! If I'm black, how is that in my best interests?

    Hence, the statement that your position is more in line with theirs. Please tell me how you disagree with this.
    quote:
    Second, you always talk about results and effectiveness, please tell me how your thinking - relying only on changing our attitude - would have gotten us from 1863 to now.



    AGAIN you MISREPRESENT everything that I have been saying on this message board.

    I TELL YOU CONSTANTLY that there are TWO FRONTS in the STRUGGLE that Black people face

    1) The struggle to have America impose and enforce laws that guarantee the rights of all of it's citizens, regardless of race and to PROSECUTE ANYONE WHO VIOLATES THESE LAWS REGARDLESS OF THEIR COLOR. (This is what you reference above).

    2) The struggle WITHIN THE BLACK COMMUNITY to define and enforce a culture that has us successfully TRANSFORMED from the experiences that our ancestors have lived through as we reorient ourselves to make full use of our current freedoms.


    In the first we can't have White folks to stop being racist BUT IF THEY ACT UPON THEIR TENDENCIES there will be consequences. So this is not a change of "attitudes" but a change of BEHAVIOR by having consequences.

    In the second I have long told you about the "IF /THEN" equation that must be offered in the Black community, a 180 degree turn from the "civil rights" model that is present today.

    NEW BLACK LEADERSHIP (and no I did not say conservative - what ever that means) needs to detail for our people how the "promised land" will look - the freedoms that are present, the state of our health, the state of our families, the state of our educational systems.......

    He must then REVERSE ENGINEER the steps necessary to get to this state and tell the PEOPLE their role in getting there. What they must START doing, what they must STOP doing.

    If you want to call this a "change in attitude" then fine. I call it ASSIGNING MORE OF A PURPOSE behind what we do as a people.

    Now MBM - I know that arguing against me is a sport for you and others. Can you tell me what is disagreeable about the above statement?
    quote:
    Originally posted by Constructive Feedback:

    1) The struggle to have America impose and enforce laws that guarantee the rights of all of it's citizens, regardless of race and to PROSECUTE ANYONE WHO VIOLATES THESE LAWS REGARDLESS OF THEIR COLOR. (This is what you reference above).


    So why the extraordinary dichotomy between petitioning government for some things and not others? Why is, say, affirmative action so wrong in your judgment but apparently other measures are OK? It's OK to say that white America cannot prevent black people from voting, but it's wrong to say that white America cannot discriminate against blacks in hiring and education?

    quote:
    In the first we can't have White folks to stop being racist BUT IF THEY ACT UPON THEIR TENDENCIES there will be consequences.


    So what's your problem with affirmative action? Whites are being held accountable for their behavior as you note above. CF - if there were no discrimination, then there would be no affirmative action. Do you understand that point? Affirmative action is a response to racism.

    quote:
    Now MBM - I know that arguing against me is a sport for you and others. Can you tell me what is disagreeable about the above statement?


    Nothing - because you conveniently cleansed all of your typical dialogue about EFFECT and DEPENDENCE upon white people etc. You argued against my heart attack analogy. It seems that you agree that our solution is BOTH clearing the artery AND changing lifestyle after all.
    quote:
    Originally posted by Constructive Feedback:

    I TELL YOU CONSTANTLY that there are TWO FRONTS in the STRUGGLE that Black people face

    1) The struggle to have America impose and enforce laws that guarantee the rights of all of it's citizens, regardless of race and to PROSECUTE ANYONE WHO VIOLATES THESE LAWS REGARDLESS OF THEIR COLOR. (This is what you reference above).


    Could you please square your statement above with what you have traditionally said here and what is included in your signature:

    THEN YOUR constant injection of the GOVERNMENT into the solutions for Black people is evidence of your lack of confidence that as a people we are capable of TRANSFORMING ourselves by adopting a CULTURE that produces such an outcome and instead must rely on external resources to care for us as a people thus limiting our ability and willingness to depart for the unfavorable position that such dependency leaves us.


    In your first statement you seem to acknowledge that there are external/structural obstacles to overcome. What you have traditionally said, and what is in your signature, seems to suggest that our culture and thinking are our primary/only barriers to success. Please explain what your true thinking is. Is government part of the solution or not?

    Confused Should we look to government to do things to even the playing field, or not?
    quote:
    Now MBM - I know that arguing against me is a sport for you and others. Can you tell me what is disagreeable about the above statement?
    Well, the proof is in the pudding. I mean, please... You went through this whole thing about "I Have Changed" ostensibly in an effort to Deflect Criticism of your views. Dude, seek help for them DEMONS...

    I say that to say this: Saying things purposely to sound agreeable never negate or compensate for, as MBM questioned, your "TRUE" views. But I think this is a very important line of discussion. One where BOTH of you speak to what is essentially a defensive posture in terms of Challenging (if you can call it that) The System.

    Note: AA doesn't demand that the system change per se, only that it includes or accomodates. The core structure then, remains intact; unchanged. And, yes, at every point there is a "dependency" of sorts to constantly maintain the "inclusion" or "accomodation".

    The point is actual systemic, structural change would build that "accomodation" (or inclusion) into the structure itself as to make it a permanent fixture. So, on one point, the sentiment from CF's corner has a point: We Are Fresh Out Of Laws or Things In The Constitution That Would Advance Us In The Same Manner Our Struggle Was Advanced In 1863 or even 1963.

    If not, what are the new "laws", the "new" promises of Democracy we can use today like Frederick Douglas, e.g., and MLK did to speak to a vision that not only TRANSFORMED Black People, but America as whole?

    Right now, for lack of a better term (and without try to belittle...lol), we are in a holding pattern in terms of vision and our ultimate challenge to government.

    I think it was Marty who mentioned the "No New Laws" Theory and also mentioned an idea that makes CF's position more valid... Marty said something to the effect that Blacks overwhelmingly, and perhaps enthusiastically, voted for Clinton but by Clinton's own reported reflections: We Made No Demands; Expected Little For Loyalty.

    Now, I really could give a shit about rehashing politics and our state of affairs with either the Democratic or Republican party. But the point is we have been suffering from a Crisis of Leadership which is primarily due to a Lack Of Vision. Or I should say, A Lack Of A Clear One That Deals More Effectively With The Issues That Concern Us.

    So, yes! We need "New [Black] Leadership"... though I'm not buying CF's BS about "I did not say conservative"... IMO, we have the leadership we have, in whole or in part, because of the system and structure of things. IMO, when the WHITE SUPREMACY Dynamics are changed then so will our leadership. In fact, I regard that as one aspect of The New Frontier.

    If, as CF tries to demand... if we want Black Leadership that is more responsive and accountable to us, then its incumbent on us to, as they say, put our leadership in a position to succeed. And that would necessitate a concerted effort to TRANSFORM the American political landscape... away from a two-party system and one that doesn't afford us some measure of Proportionality of Power.

    That doesn't preclude anything else. It merely ask us to reevaluate our expectations and to actually demand something -- more.
    quote:
    In your first statement you seem to acknowledge that there are external/structural obstacles to overcome. What you have traditionally said, and what is in your signature, seems to suggest that our culture and thinking are our primary/only barriers to success. Please explain what your true thinking is. Is government part of the solution or not?



    MBM:

    I live in a subdivision that has a very strong Homeowners Association. I CONSIDER THIS A GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE. We pay "taxes" in the form of fees each year.

    With this the common areas are taken care of, the grass is cut. There is a Crime Watch and there is a good relationship with the local police department.

    We have signed covenance in which I am not allowed to paint my house with polka dots and I can't have a 76 Chevette in my yard propped up on cinder blocks.

    Again I CONSIDER THIS GOVERNMENT. I have a direct say in this government. This government allows the people who CHOOSE to live here to express their COMMON GOALS of a safe community and appreciating property values.

    Again - if you read all that I have posted I have challenged you and others to have stronger LOCAL GOVERNMENT as the primary means of creating the environment in the Black community that you seek. No where have I said that there is NO PLACE FOR GOVERNMENT.

    I HAVE challenged your notion of using the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT as an agent of INCOME REDISTRIBUTION. I have told you that it is FOOLISH for Black people to support a policy of high national taxes as we hand over the money that COULD BE USED LOCALLY to a group of people who MIGHT NOT SHARE YOUR SAME INTERESTS.

    I have told you that the better strategy is to produce wealth LOCALLY and keep this money locally in order to produce the SCHOOLS, community services and the level of safety that you seek. In doing this YOU HAVE NO BODY ELSE to make a plea to for additional resources.

    It DOES require the second part to happen though - WEALTH CREATION at the local level and thus BLACK PEOPLE are required to be CONSCIOUS of where we spend our money.

    It is clear to me that you and others are AVERSE to having the Black community carry any risk as we CHANGE and BENEFIT from a change in conduct that has our resources more focused. As I challenge Kevin - many of us have become PACIFIED with MEDIORICTY in the results that have been obtained BUT CAN'T QUITE ANSWER THE QUESTION - how do we achieve parity beyond what the programs that have popular support can produce for us.

    GOVERNMENT has a place. I want municipal, state and federal governments to be limited to their SPECIFICAL ROLES. I don't LOOK FIRST to the Feds for resources. I also inspect what WE AS A PEOPLE NEED TO DO.

    It is COMPLETELY FOOLISH to believe that your long term adversary is going to be the sponsor of your SALVATION if you can just get ONE MORE LAW OR POLICY in place to HOLD HIM DOWN!!! You can't even get WHITE FOLKS to live in the same community with you even in today's world (see the AJC today about the resegregation of schools). How and why is it considered SANE to have a dependency on him to have you attend college?
    quote:
    It is COMPLETELY FOOLISH to believe that your long term adversary is going to be the sponsor of your SALVATION if you can just get ONE MORE LAW OR POLICY in place to HOLD HIM DOWN!!! You can't even get WHITE FOLKS to live in the same community with you even in today's world...
    And that squares with your FANTASTIC SAMS idea... HOW??

    quote:
    ...I did my own test the other day. I took my 2 year old son to get a hair cut in a "Fantastic Sam's" chain beauty salon which was full of White people just to sample were we stand with regards to race relations. With a hair cut being so up close and personal surely this would expose some hidden racism.

    http://functionalculture.blogspot.com/2004/11/were-do-w...-here-as-people.html
    It's the definition of RHETORIC when you merely say things for EFFECT (or some perceived advantage it gives you) and not because they represent something that are core (and consistent) beliefs.

    LONG TERM ADVERSARY...
    How come that theme isn't a consistent chord throughout most of the things you say? You do know what an ADVERSARY is? Don't You?

    Note: There is nothing passive about that term... And no strategy worth it's salt has the philosophy of "wait for the Enemy/Adversary to strike, then will punish him according to laws he set up"... This is the shit you said:

    quote:
    1) The struggle to have America impose and enforce laws that guarantee the rights of all of it's citizens, regardless of race and to PROSECUTE ANYONE WHO VIOLATES THESE LAWS REGARDLESS OF THEIR COLOR.

    ...We can't have White folks to stop being racist BUT IF THEY ACT UPON THEIR TENDENCIES there will be consequences.
    One word: REACTIONARY.
    NMANGINATE:

    The "Fantastic Sam's" is owned by an Indian guy.

    He employs 2 Black females as stylists.

    My wife now gets her hair washed there by an Philipino woman who works there instead of driving for about 45 minutes to her old stylist (she still gets her hair cut there).

    The WHITE WOMAN that cuts my son's hair HAS DONE THE BEST JOB ON HIS HEAD thus far. Combined with her ability to deal with children I WILL CONTINUE TO MAKE USE OF HER SERVICES. It is ashame that you don't have control over my wallet as you want to control my actions.
    Poor CONFUSED, CONCUSSED CONSERVATIVE FEEDBACK....

    What I keep highlighting about your Fantastic Sam-ism has nothing with your wallet or any type of desire of mine to "control your actions"... Do what you will. As stated, I just highlight or rather bring clearly to light the type of BULLSHIT concepts that flood your mind and form the backdrop of the shit you say, fully exposing what your CORE BELIEFS are about RACE & RACISM and how you are so eager to excuse, exempt, Defend and Defer...

    You said, out your own mouth, that you were conducting an experiment... All that shit about who this and you wife/son that, then, is IRRELEVANT. I specifically have highlighted your professed reasons and purpose for your self-motivated "experiment" and your overall mindset (i.e. what you claimed you set out to prove and felt you did prove) and, basically, what that says about your and your essentially ideology and thought on the extent and degree of RACISM.

    I mean, just look at this shit:
    quote:
    Why It Is That A Few Ignorant White Folks Get To Define The State of Race Relations?

    With the recent news that the billionaire entertainment mogul, Oprah Winfrey was not allowed into a posh French boutique after hours, reportedly because was SWB (Shopping While Black) I can't help but notice that some folks took this incident to mean that regardless of how much money you have "you are still a nigger".

    As I think about the psychology and pathology of such a perspective I cannot miss the notion that such a valuation of one's self is handed over to the judgment of the offending racist. Billionaire Oprah, recently voted the most powerful figure in the entertainment industry could easily purchase the entire Hermes and fire every one of the employees, repopulating the entire chain with people of more considerate views. Yet some of the folks with the perspective that I mention believe that regardless of how rich and powerful one gets they will be cheapened by the views of others and will never escape their state of Blackness.

    In my view it is faulty to evaluate the state of racism and oppression by the views or actions of individual people who prove to be exceptions and use this as an inference to what the "rule" is...

    http://functionalculture.blogspot.com/2005/07/why-it-is...-ignorant-white.html


    You either truly have some real, horrific DEMONS or you are the World's Most Hapless POSER, White or Black... or whatever your issue is.

    Your thoughts speak for themselves... There is nothing you can do to rationalize or sugar coat that shit away. The Discord Between The Occasional 'Hard Core' RHETORIC you stumble upon here, when provoked, and What You Choose To Say Within The Sanctity Of Your Own Forum(blog)... (As The King Of Comedy Steve said)... LET'S US FURTHER KNOW exactly where you are coming from. No backtracking equivocation and qualifying can compensate for all that.

    At best, you are one of my primary examples of someone VOICING SENTIMENTS WITHOUT CONVICTION - i.e. you're subject to say just about anything without a pause as to how it conflicts or contradicts some of the very things you say or have said. You really have No CENTER. No CORE. No Foundation save to do exactly what you have been charged with: Excusing, Exempting, Defending and Deferring...


    And to think I basically bragged about your ass some years ago. The tiny rep I could have imagined having just disappeared when you appeared with this type of BS. Back at old TBWT, I at least respected you. Now, it's like damn...
    quote:
    NMAGINATE:

    You are quickly reaching the point where it is best to IGNORE YOU since your goal is not to solve anything but to offuscate and derail.
    CON-FEED...

    I would much rather say my goal is to Examine and EXPOSE... But since I'm in the mood, let's see how you OBFUSCATE on this:
    quote:
    BOOKER RISING COMMENTARY
    Communitarianism: A Strategy for Black Moderates and Conservatives?

    No, not communism but communitarianism...

    Communitarians emphasize the role of communities in shaping individuals (vs. libertarianism, which emphasizes the role of individuals in shaping communities). Communitarians are staunch advocates of a civil society - instead of government - promoting social mores. However, they believe that individual rights must be balanced with social responsibility...

    ...We regularly bemoan that black moderates and especially black conservatives aren't in the trenches enough, interacting with black masses and building black communities from the ground up... [Hmmm...]

    ...Booker T. Washington was a conservative communitarian. His ideology wasn't rooted in individual liberty or individual progress, but group progress....

    Mr. Washington regularly talked about social responsibility, with his character education plank. He was focused on the black masses. Individual liberty is certainly very important, but so are community values...


    ...Due to our West African heritage, we are a communal people. For instance, political science research shows that most black voters don't vote based on individual self-interest, but perceived group interest. Thus, most black voters will support a policy - even if it doesn't personally benefit them - if we believe it will advance group progress. A communitarian ethic...
    You're down with the Book(ers)? Ain't cha? Well, ain't cha??

    Just checking... I hope this cures your Knee JERK-itis as it relates to things you want to associate with "socialism"...

    So are you a "LIBERTARIAN"?
    Don't worry... I'm not going to Hit You With the [Radical] HARD LEFT... Just asking since you try so hard to distance yourself from that Dracula's Cross called CONSERVATIVE... even though by your own Bi-Polarism you've established yourself as one set against [Black] LIBERALS whose opposites and opposition, again by your definition, are CONSERVATIVES. Again, you've made it plain that you are an OPPONENT (i.e., by you reasoning, the opposite) of LIBERALS.

    But let me stop "obfuscating"... Are you down with Malcolm X on this or not?
    "You can't have racism without capitalism. If you find antiracists, usually they're socialists or their political philosophy is that of socialism."

    ... I'm sorry. That just confuses the point and, I guess, takes away from it. In the spirit of SOLVING things, can we come to some agreement, resolution and conclusion on this:
    quote:
    [How can anyone] call Malcolm X (and other black historical leaders) "CONSERVATIVE" when he argued for revolution - an overthrow of the social, political, economic, and cultural foundations of the country?
    You do have an answer for that by now don't you? Or has your point been to Side-Track, Avoid, Evade, Distract and DERAIL or shall I say OBFUSCATE and try to IGNORE that question which just happens to call into question some more of your bullshit?

    quote:
    It is clear that YOU and NMAGINATE and KEVIN and FAHEEM and others seek to DIVIDE Blacks based on this "Black Conservative" fault line...
    No, it is clear you are OUT OF YOUR LEAGUE and I have respect for people, regardless of ideology, who are straight-up, who aren't pretentious and who are principled -- consistently so.
    quote:
    ...Due to our West African heritage, we are a communal people. For instance, political science research shows that most black voters don't vote based on individual self-interest, but perceived group interest. Thus, most black voters will support a policy - even if it doesn't personally benefit them - if we believe it will advance group progress. A communitarian ethic...


    **Hence my stance on AA and anything else that ever gave a black an opportunity, and i don't give a schit if it was just one black....this is not about my personal situation any more, but it was at one time...it is about others travelling the roads I have behind me..just like I traveled those roads behind others.....and for the fact the blkCON benefitted from the very things they decry......they lack credibility or any human worth.......on the basis of deference to white intent and overall selfishness........
    quote:
    Originally posted by Fine:
    Nothing was conservative about this great man.

    And besides the 'words' [black conservative' are oxymorons--whicb probably best describes who ever used this term and Malcolm X in the same sentence!

    Fine


    For the first time in recent memory I AGREE WITH YOU.

    The term "conservative" is CONTEXUAL in nature.

    It and the word "liberal" have been so contorted in their common use in America that they no longer serve as a proper descriptor.

    I can say that this GREAT MAN saw the need to address SYSTEMATIC RACISM and he PROFESSED THE NEED FOR INDIVIDUALS TO DISCIPLINE THEMSELVES, living up to the SENSE OF PURPOSE that each of us must obtain consciousness of if the Black Race is to progress from it's Back sliden state

    Malcolm X said that he did not trust a man who did not have enough respect for time NOT TO WEAR A WATCH. He did not demand that the Federal Government HAND OUT WATCHES TO EVERYONE WHO DID NOT HAVE ONE.
    quote:
    CON-FEED...

    I would much rather say my goal is to Examine and EXPOSE... But since I'm in the mood, let's see how you OBFUSCATE on this:



    I guess that YOU MISSED IT when someone a few months ago said that Pre-colonial AFRICAN societies were COMMUNIST and I CORRECTED THEM stating that they were COMMUNIALIST due to the state of technology present and their need to work together or STARVE.

    It is intersting how you SELECTIVELY pick and choose from my words to misrepresent my views.
    quote:
    Originally posted by MBM:
    [
    Who did demand this CF? You are the captain of unsubstantiated inference. Who demanded this?


    Please note that I did not accuse anyone of saying this.

    I made the point that Malcolm X was not affraid to call for PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY and DISCIPLINE even in a time of rampid and in your face systematic racism.
    On Malcolm X:

    quote:
    Originally posted by Constructive Feedback:

    I can say that this GREAT MAN saw the need to address SYSTEMATIC RACISM and he PROFESSED THE NEED FOR INDIVIDUALS TO DISCIPLINE THEMSELVES, living up to the SENSE OF PURPOSE that each of us must obtain consciousness of if the Black Race is to progress from it's Back sliden state


    Funny how you read this and see some support of a conservative agenda/principles. Malcolm was a revolutionary and about as opposite of a conservative as one can be - yet you feebly try to devine conservative inspiration from his words. Might you ever think that perhaps your concept of "self-reliance" really isn't as conservative as you think it is? bang
    quote:
    Originally posted by Constructive Feedback:
    quote:
    Originally posted by MBM:

    Who did demand this CF? You are the captain of unsubstantiated inference. Who demanded this?


    Please note that I did not accuse anyone of saying this.

    I made the point that Malcolm X was not affraid to call for PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY and DISCIPLINE even in a time of rampid and in your face systematic racism.


    No CF. bs These are your words:

    quote:
    Malcolm X said that he did not trust a man who did not have enough respect for time NOT TO WEAR A WATCH. He did not demand that the Federal Government HAND OUT WATCHES TO EVERYONE WHO DID NOT HAVE ONE.


    What is the point of the second sentence if not to infer that someone believed that. Since you are attempting to attach conservative principles to MX then your statement infers that liberals must believe in the contrasting approach (handing out watches). Of course this fits perfectly with your belief that liberals rely on government inappropriately, does it not?

    Why write things if you are going to immediately refute your own statements? Confused Perhaps you should be more thoughtful about what you post in the first place. sck
    quote:
    I made the point that Malcolm X was not affraid to call for PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY and DISCIPLINE even in a time of rampid and in your face systematic racism.
    And that's a stark contrast to your EITHER OR thinking...

    Like MBM, KEVIN Et Al (myself included)... this is about a BOTH AND approach. Nevertheless, and contrary to your feigned acknowledgement of Systematic/Structural RACISM, unlike Malcolm X, you don't have very well developed (hell, not even developed) thoughts on BOTH Fronts. ALL YOUR RHETORIC is about "personal responsibility"... Malcolm, MLK, etc., etc. saw no separate or even hierarchy, really, for those things. They go Hand-In-Hand.

    Now, since you have sung the Janet Jackson, "Let's Wait Awhile" when it comes to Confront The Power Structure without a hint on what grounds that confrontation will be on (since you, by and large, dismiss AA as legitimate, etc.) then we see how shallow and/or how fake your stated views are.

    Dude.... Get a CENTER...
    quote:
    Funny how you read this and see some support of a conservative agenda/principles. Malcolm was a revolutionary and about as opposite of a conservative as one can be - yet you feebly try to devine conservative inspiration from his words. Might you ever think that perhaps your concept of "self-reliance" really isn't as conservative as you think it is?


    Once again you make use of a label (revolutionary) and attempt to encompass the entire man with a label.

    I have previously REJECTED the use of the term Black Conservative. Why do you continue to make use of it in conversation with me (or attempt to label me as such?)

    For instance - how do you label my call for REVOLUTIONARY Public School Reform in the Black community where the maximum number of people IN OUR COMMUNITY buy into the importance of educational excellence and enforce this as a priority among other things that tend to draw from this? (Is this a CONSERVATIVE idea?) More importantly would this have a more DEEP SEATED effect on our community? How would our community be transformed, in a Malcolm Little to Malcolm X sort of way as THE STRUGGLE and the PROCESS OF ESTABLISHING this new culture becomes a part of who we are as a people?

    Is it possible that my debate opponents way of ACCEPTING CRUMBS is CONSERVATIVE in the manner of what I saw last night while watching "The Autobiography of Mrs. Jane Pittman"? Begging for crumbs WHILE DOING SO IN AN ANGRY MANNER is still "begging for crumbs".
    quote:
    Originally posted by Constructive Feedback:

    Is it possible that my debate opponents way of ACCEPTING CRUMBS is CONSERVATIVE in the manner of what I saw last night while watching "The Autobiography of Mrs. Jane Pittman"? Begging for crumbs WHILE DOING SO IN AN ANGRY MANNER is still "begging for crumbs".


    So, how would you characterize your unwillingness, or just plain FEAR, of confronting power in our behalf? Our existence in this country, since 1619, has been defined by LAW, yet you are afraid to pursue the law as a continuing means to allow us to maximize our experience.

    That is being afraid to even go into the kitchen, much less settle for crumbs. nono
    quote:
    So, how would you characterize your unwillingness, or just plain FEAR, of confronting power in our behalf?


    I would "characterize" this as a MISCHARACTERIZATION.

    ANGER AND RESENTMENT are two attributes that CANNOT SUSTAIN A MOVEMENT. Since your EMOTIONS are directed outward toward a certain entity YOU MUST REMAIN AROUND THIS SAME ENTITY TO ACHIEVE THE POINT OF UNIFICATION THAT YOU HAVE USED TO KEEP YOUR PEOPLE TOGETHER.

    Depart from this external "power" (or he leaves YOU) and your movement falls apart.

    The thing that you must understand about ME is that I AM NOT STANDING IN YOUR WAY for your AGENDA. I am providing "constructive feedback" so that you might address the FLAWS that I see in it.

    I am dramatically puzzled why Kevin, for example can't see that the persistent problem that AFFIRMATIVE ACTION is going to face is OPPOSITION FROM WHITE FOLKS who see the growth in the power of Black folks as a threat to their power and are going to "PLUG THE LEAK".

    How can you CONFRONT THE POWER while you are DEPENDENT UPON THEIR SYMPATHIES?

    When I DARE to point this out (or worse yet - ASK QUESTIONS of those who have been Knighted As BLACKA THAN BLACK) I AM AN AGENT OF "THE ENEMY".

    Is it ME who is a threat OR is it SOME FOLKS DON'T LIKE BEING QUESTIONED??? wel

    When the roadblock is faced WHAT DO YOU DO? Clearly the answer is TRY HARDER doing things as we had done it.....place the focus on the EXTERNAL rather than organizing OURSELVES from WITHIN (and I am not just talking about ORGANIZING A PROTEST). I am talking about ORDERING BLACK FOLKS so more of us are CONSCIOUS and CONTRIBUTING to the TRANSFORMATION of us as a people from the DARKNESS that our ancestors have passed through.

    TRANSFORMATION is not going to come when your starting reference point is your TIME SPENT AS A SLAVE.

    Even if you started from the reference point of the thousands and thousands of years that you were free YOU WOULD BE BETTER OFF and not have RESENTMENT as your core attribute. At least you could develop a culture while attempting to GET TO KNOW THE CULTURE OF THESE PEOPLE who ONLY KNEW FREEDOM!!!
    CF - can you tell me who discusses or even infers that "resentment" is any part of the civil rights agenda? Did Frederick Douglas talk about "resentment"? Did MLK talk about "resentment"? MX? Does Jesse Jackson talk about resentment? How about Nmaginate? Kevin41? Me?

    Where are you getting this junk from? Confused

    Add Reply

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