Skip to main content

quote:
What is so ignorant about the fact Colombia is the only foreign country that I travel to on a regular basis, and the only foreign country that I have spent any significant amount of time in...


Because you truly believe in your contorted mind that you can justify a feigned activism about Latin America and justify your anti-American disposition under the auspices of what your wife has done or is currently doing. If she is fighting against oppression in her country and the trade agreement between Latin America and the U.S., she's having to do so because of the oppressive, genocide-spreading, racist, terrorist deeds of your forefathers not hers.
quote:
Originally posted by Romulus Burnett:
quote:
What is so ignorant about the fact Colombia is the only foreign country that I travel to on a regular basis, and the only foreign country that I have spent any significant amount of time in...


Because you truly believe in your contorted mind that you can justify a feigned activism about Latin America and justify your anti-American disposition under the auspices of what your wife has done or is currently doing. If she is fighting against oppression in her country and the trade agreement between Latin America and the U.S., she's having to do so because of the oppressive, genocide-spreading, racist, terrorist deeds of your forefathers not hers.


No, IronHorse.

I was asked a personal question in a thread a year ago, and gave the obvious personal answer, an answer having absolutely nothing to do with anything we were talking about prior to your diversion.

You chose to link to my (obvious) answer to a personal question instead because you were simply unable to find the post of mine that you claimed existed.

So now you are reduced to throwing up shit into the air in a silly little temper tantrum.

And I am still waiting for you to quote from and link to a relevant post of mine.

But again, I'm not going to hold my breath while I wait.

Your fingers wrote a check that your ass can't cash.

Let me know if you ever find that quote that you were looking for, IronHorse.
quote:
Jose Diaz, 38, an illegal immigrant from Michoacan, Mexico, said he regularly saw employers shun African American workers. "They don't want to pick them up because they don't like to work," he said.

"It's 100% true that we work harder than they do," said Victor Reyes, 45, an illegal immigrant from Guatemala, confident that his comments in Spanish would go unnoticed by the black workers within earshot.

________________________________________________


I think that the attitude expressed by the Latino above is what bothers me the most, because what they do not understand is that the Black men who he has just insulted could make it hard for them to even be picked up, in fact, they could make it impossible for them to be picked up on that corner, but since the Black men (whom he choses to insult and put down) respect the Mexican workers plight and have compassion for their situation, the Black men (whom he choses to insult) leave it alone, and let the Mexican men have free access to all the work that they will be picked up for so they can provide for their families or just survive here, often alone and/or without documentation, and without insulting them or putting them down as an entire group.

Man, it isn't even funny how immigrants to this country in the last decade or two (or three) repay the favors bestowed upon them by Black people in this country ----
They don't seem to realize that Black---

not being racist against them too,

not raising hell about their being where ever they needed to be to work and survive in this country too,

and particularly,

not joinging up with the white racist in this country in their politically motivated racist campaigns against "illegal" immigrants (i.e., "Brown" immigrants only),

and that after African Americans were on the front line of the civil rights movement in this country, for the civil right of EVERYBODY, particularly, Black and Brown people, and have been the ones to raise the most hell to keep equally, non-discrimination, and constitional rights, and "The American Dream" on the forefront----all of which is being enjoyed by plently of Mexicans/Latinos in this country legal AND illegal,

etc., etc.,

All of this has went a long way in their being here in the first place, and has been instrumental drowning out the voice of the white racists who would be mistreating them far worse, and that do not want them here at all.
quote:
Originally posted by sunnubian:
quote:
Jose Diaz, 38, an illegal immigrant from Michoacan, Mexico, said he regularly saw employers shun African American workers. "They don't want to pick them up because they don't like to work," he said.

"It's 100% true that we work harder than they do," said Victor Reyes, 45, an illegal immigrant from Guatemala, confident that his comments in Spanish would go unnoticed by the black workers within earshot.


I've seen that sort of confidence get shattered pretty damn fast more than once.

lol
quote:
Originally posted by ricardomath:
quote:
Originally posted by Romulus Burnett:
quote:
What is so ignorant about the fact Colombia is the only foreign country that I travel to on a regular basis, and the only foreign country that I have spent any significant amount of time in...


Because you truly believe in your contorted mind that you can justify a feigned activism about Latin America and justify your anti-American disposition under the auspices of what your wife has done or is currently doing. If she is fighting against oppression in her country and the trade agreement between Latin America and the U.S., she's having to do so because of the oppressive, genocide-spreading, racist, terrorist deeds of your forefathers not hers.


No, IronHorse.

I was asked a personal question in a thread a year ago, and gave the obvious personal answer, an answer having absolutely nothing to do with anything we were talking about prior to your diversion.

You chose to link to my (obvious) answer to a personal question instead because you were simply unable to find the post of mine that you claimed existed.

So now you are reduced to throwing up shit into the air in a silly little temper tantrum.

And I am still waiting for you to quote from and link to a relevant post of mine.

But again, I'm not going to hold my breath while I wait.

Your fingers wrote a check that your ass can't cash.

Let me know if you ever find that quote that you were looking for, IronHorse.


Since you're determined to call me ironhorse like that other idiot that's determined to think I'm also billc, I'll just continue to refer to your pastey, beer belly, freakle faced, underbite-having, middle-aged, liver spot-infested, balding self as Dilbert.

You haven't reduced anyone to a damn thing. I just love to see you continue to lie about not having made certain comments, then when proven wrong you act like a child with down syndrome by trying to dismiss and marginalize your bullshit--making ignorant, childish comments and run to the pet peeves thread and act the damn fool.

So, while you sit in this thread lying, denying, and clowning I'll continue to prove you're full of shit, Dilbert. Just how full of shit are you, Dilbert? Well, lets take a look at the garbage you posted about Mexico about their attitude towards slavery in the 1800's as a response to leart's contemporary remark on current racial attitudes towards blacks:

http://africanamerica.org/eve/...213/m/4961088064/p/9

quote:
Originally posted by leart:

But there is one thing that is definite in this World, if African Americans would invade the Borders of Mexico, illegially in the same manner as they invaded the U.S., all hell would break loose. Notwithstanding the fact that the Mexican Government would not deliver these invaders any benefits nor would any Employers hire them.




quote:
Originally posted by Dilbert:

Mexico's Legacy: a Refuge For Fugitive Slaves And Black Job-Seekers: New Perspectives On The Immigration Debate


By Prof. Ron Wilkins, published in The Black Commentator


There are of course, many angles from which to view the escalating immigration debate. Mexican immigrants, who constitute the largest share of the undocumented, have a unique history with the African population inside the United States. As the Black community weighs-in on this very contentious issue, it becomes necessary for us (both black and brown) to review the history that we share. However, before reviewing our history together, I need to say unequivocally that the U.S. seizure of more than half of Mexico's territory in 1848 netted Washington more than 80% of Mexico's mineral wealth and was a criminal act. And that if Mexico today still included California and Texas, she would possess more oil than Saudi Arabia and have sufficient economic infrastructure to employ all of her people.

When Mexican people say that "the border crossed us, we did not cross the border," they speak the truth, and more black people (most of whom are not strangers to oppression, exploitation, domination and exclusion) need to appreciate that. It has been said that for most of the 19th century, Mexican immigrants were more highly regarded by African Americans, than any other immigrant group. What may account for this, at least in part, is the enormous if not pivotal role undertaken by black fighters in the war to secure Mexican independence from Spain and abolish slavery. Unfortunately, many of us repeat the falsehoods of our adversaries and have forgotten our special relationship with Mexican and Indigenous peoples. It is time that our memories be restored and that the naysayers and nativist negroes among us either put up or shut up. What follows is the little known history of Mexico serving as a refuge for fugitive slaves and a provider of job opportunities for blacks emigrating from the U.S. to Mexico.

Mexico Rejected Fugitive Slave Extradition Treaties

From the very beginning of his Texas colonization scheme, a determined and deceitful Stephen Austin sought to have Mexican officials acquiesce to the settlement of slave-owning whites into the territory. It was generally acknowledged that the people and government of Mexico abhorred slavery and were determined to prohibit its practice within the Mexican republic. Beginning in 1822, at least 20,000 Anglos, many with their slave property, settled into Texas. Jared Groce, one of the first of Stephen Austin's Texas settlers that year, arrived with 90 enslaved Africans. The Mexican Federal Law of July 13, 1824 clearly favored and promoted the emancipation of slaves. Mexico had even stipulated that it was prepared to compensate North American owners of fugitive slaves. Determined instead to have things their way, Anglos began to press for an extradition treaty which would require Mexico to return fugitive slaves.

From 1825 until the end of the Civil War in 1865, Mexican authorities continuously thwarted attempts by slave-holding Texas settlers, to conclude fugitive slave extradition treaties between the two parties. During this period of extremely tense relations between the two governments, Mexico consistently repudiated and forbade the institution of slavery in its territory, while U.S. officials and Texas slave-owners continuously sought ways to circumvent Mexican law. The Mexican authorities thwarted repeated attempts by slave-holding Texas settlers, to conclude fugitive slave extradition treaties between the two parties.

In 1826 the Committee of Foreign Relations of the Mexican Chamber of Deputies refused to compromise on the issue of fugitive slaves and defended the right of enslaved Africans to liberate themselves. Mexican government officials cited "the inalienable right which the Author of nature has conceded to him (meaning enslaved persons)."

Congress member Erasmo Seguin from Texas commented that the Congress was "resolved to decree the perpetual extinction in the Republic of commerce and traffic in slaves, and that their introduction into our territory should not be permitted under any pretext."

Again, in October 1828 the Mexican Senate rejected 14 articles of a newly-proposed treaty and harshly criticized article 33, stating "it would be most extraordinary that in a treaty between two free republics slavery should be encouraged by obliging ours to deliver up fugitive slaves to their merciless and barbarous masters of North America."

Reporting on the growing number of Anglo settlers in Texas, Mexican General Teran reported "most of them have slaves, and these slaves are beginning to learn the favorable intent of Mexican law to their unfortunate condition and are becoming restless under their yokes ..." General Teran went on to describe the cruelty meted out by masters to restless slaves; "they extract their teeth, set on the dogs to tear them in pieces, the most lenient being he who but flogs his slaves until they are flayed."

On September 15, 1829 Afro-Mexican President Vicente Guerrero signed a decree banning slavery in the Mexican Republic. Yielding to appeals from panicked settlers and Mexican collaborators who saw Mexico benefiting economically from the Anglo presence, Guerrero exempted Texas from the prohibition on the introduction of slaves into the republic, on December 2nd. Several months later, the Mexican government severely restricted Anglo immigration and banned the introduction of slaves into the republic.

Undeterred, the Anglos succeeded in negotiating a new treaty with Mexico in 1831, which included article 34, which called for pursuit and reclamation of fugitive slaves. After considerable wrangling between the Mexican Chamber of Deputies and Senate, article 34 was removed from the treaty. Also, by 1831 it became apparent through debate within the Mexican Senate that the government's welcoming of fugitive slaves was not completely altruistic. Some Mexican officials, fearful of U.S. military intervention, had began to see it as wise to encourage the development of runaway slave colonies along the Northern border as a way to lessen the threat posed by the U.S. As historian Rosalie Schwartz put it, many Mexican officials "reasoned, these fugitives, choosing between liberty under the Mexican government and bondage in the United States, would fight to protect their Mexican freedom more vigorously than any mercenaries." As the interests of Mexican officials and U.S. abolitionists coincided during the early 1830's, a modest number of former slaves established themselves in Texas and fared well during the period.

In 1836, after the fall of the Alamo and its slave-owning or pro-slavery leaders, such as William Travis, Jim Bowie and Davy Crockett, Mexican forces were defeated and an independent Texas was eventually annexed by the United States. However, before the expulsion of Mexican forces from Texas, Brigadier General Jose Urrea evicted scores of illegally-settled plantation owners, liberated slaves, and in many instances, granted them on-the-spot titles to the land they had worked. Oddly enough, many black people call for "forty acres and a mule" – a reference to Union General Sherman's Special Field Order 15 and General Howard's Circular 13, which made some land available to former slaves. But what one never hears are references to Mexican General Jose Urrea and the land titles that he and his men granted to former Texas slaves, following the defeat of the Alamo, a generation before the "Civil War."

Even after the loss of Texas, Mexican officials refused to formally acknowledge Texas independence on the grounds that it "would be equivalent to the sanction and recognition of slavery." After Texas independence the slave population mushroomed and the number of runaways across the South Texas–North Mexico border, increased. In 1842 Mexico's Constitutional Congress reasserted the nation's commitment to fugitive slaves. In 1847, 38,753 slaves and 102,961 whites were listed in the first official Texas census. In 1850, in a new treaty accord with the United States, Mexico again refused to provide for the return of fugitive slaves.

The slave institution in Texas was continuously undermined by defiant Tejanos (Mexicans in Texas) who took great risks and invested enormous resources toward facilitating the escape of enslaved Africans. The Texas to Mexico routes to freedom constituted major unacknowledged extensions of the "Underground Railroad." Tejanos were variously accused of "tampering with slave property," "consorting with blacks" and stirring up among the slave population "a spirit of insubordination."

Plantation owners in Central Texas adopted various resolutions aimed at preventing Mexicans from aiding the slave population. Whites in Guadalupe County prohibited Mexican "peons" from entering the county and anyone from conducting business or interacting with enslaved persons without authorization from the owners. Bexar County whites suggested that "Mexican strangers entering from San Antonio register at the mayor's office and give an account of themselves and their business." Delegates to a convention in Gonzales resolved that "counties should organize vigilance committees to prosecute persons tampering with slaves" and that all citizens and slaveholders were to endeavor to prevent Mexicans from communicating with blacks. Whites in Austin decreed that "all transient Mexicans should be warned to leave within ten days, that all remaining should be forcibly expelled unless their good character and good behavior were substantiated by responsible American citizens" and that "Mexicans should no longer be employed and their presence in the area should be discouraged." In Matagorda County, all Mexicans were driven out under the bogus claim that they were wandering, indigent sub-humans who "have no fixed domicile, but hang around the plantations, taking the likeliest negro girls for wives ... they often steal horses, and these girls too, and endeavor to run them to Mexico."

By the year 1855, the estimates were that as many as 4000 to 5000 formerly enslaved Africans had escaped to Mexico. Slaveholders became so alarmed at this trend, that they requested and received, approximately 1/5th of the standing U.S army which was deployed along the Texas-Mexico border in a vain effort to stem the flow of runaways. Defiant Mexicans stood their ground, refused to return runaways, continued supporting slave uprisings and providing assistance to escaping slaves. In the words of Felix Haywood, a Texas slave, whose experience is recalled in The Slave Narratives of Texas, "Sometimes someone would come along and try to get us to run up north and be free. We used to laugh at that. There was no reason to run up north. All we had to do was walk, but walk south and we'd be free as soon as we crossed the Rio Grande."

What a Difference a Border Made

1857 was a year whose profound irony made it one of the most interesting. 1857 was the year that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Dred Scott, an enslaved African who had sued for his freedom, on the grounds that his owner had forfeited any claim to him, after taking him into a free state. Ironically 1857 was the same year that the Mexican Congress adopted Article 13 declaring that an enslaved person was free the moment he set foot on Mexican soil.

Mexico as a Provider of Job Opportunities for African Americans

During the 1890's, hundreds of black migrants fed-up with slave-like conditions and segregation, left Alabama for Mexico and established ten large colonies. Shortly thereafter, during the period of the Mexican Revolution, large numbers of black people migrated from New Orleans to Tampico, Mexico as the oil industry prospered. These Africans in Mexico established branches of Marcus Garvey's Universal Negro Improvement Association. One of the black oil workers who came to Tampico stated, "there is no race prejudice, everyone is treated according to his abilities." During the same period, black heavyweight champion Jack Johnson asserted that Mexico was "willing not only to give us the privileges of Mexican citizenship, but was also willing to champion our cause."

Juan Uribe, a major Mexican official, visiting Los Angeles in 1919, was quoted as saying, " My only regret is that it is not physically possible to immediately transport several million African Americans to my beloved Mexico, where the north yields her riches as nowhere else and where people are not disturbed by artificial standards of race or color." Similarly, African American immigrant Theodore Troy said, "I am going to a land where freedom and opportunity beckon me as well as every other man, woman and child of dark skin. In this land there are no Jim Crow laws to fetter me; I am not denied opportunity because of the color of my skin and wonderful undeveloped resources of a country smiled upon by God beckon my genius on to their development." A black colony which included fifty families, developed fruit orchards and engaged in cattle raising. It established itself in Baja, California, in the Santa Clara and Vallecitos Valleys situated between Ensenada and Tecate, approximately thirty miles south of San Diego and lasted into the 1960's.

Not to be overlooked is the enormous success of the Negro Baseball Leagues in Mexico during the 1930's and 1940's. Black ball players together with 4-500 family members seeking relief from racism in the U.S. and segregated institutions, were hosted in Mexico by generally respectful competitors and admiring fans. One competitor in particular, Ray Dandridge played for 18 years in Mexico, before Jackie Robinson gained admission into U.S. major league baseball. Also, from the 1930's to the 1960's, major Mexican muralists, such as Diego Rivera, David Siqueiros and Jose Clemente Orozco invited prominent African American artists such as Hale Woodruff, John Biggers, Elizabeth Catlett and Charles White to the Mexican Art School where they developed an art style which helped them to connect images, more effectively, to ethnic and class struggle.

Of course there are many more historical intersections where Mexican and African people cooperated with each other. A few examples were the solidarity between the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC)/Black Panther Party and Brown Berets; SNCC and the Alianza Federal de Pueblos Libres and El Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Atzlan (MEChA) and the Black Student Union (BSU). Mack Lyons, a black member of the United Farm Workers Union's National Executive, negotiated its contract with Coca Cola, which owns Minute Maid and sizeable Florida orange groves. In Los Angeles, during the 90's, black and brown students recognizing common history and mutual interests, formed the African and Latino Youth Summit (ALYS).

Admittedly, Vicente Fox is no Vicente Guerrero. The Mexico of today is profoundly different from the refuge that once welcomed fugitive slaves, or land of opportunity that embraced African American job-seekers; yet, its beautiful history of support, for African Americans in need of allies, cannot be erased. It might prove useful to see the relationship between black and brown people as similar to the bond between a man and woman. It is beautiful most of the time, but there are moments when it is tested and may become strained. When this happens one or both must give more and work to increase or renew trust.

Pass this material on to others. The black or brown reader of this piece should now know that the best of our history together, as black and brown people, speaks to the necessity of collaborating during the worst of times. A wise people are a grateful people, and never content themselves with recalling and celebrating their legendary alliance with an important neighbor. Instead, they press forward, fully aware that mutually-supportive relationships are still possible and necessary.



So, firstly, Dilbert, How the HELL does what happened over 150 YEARS AGO in Mexico do with how Mexicans feel about black people TODAY? Secondly, Dilbert, What the HELL does Ron Wilkins' sentiments on trying to 'strengthen relations' between Mexicans and blacks have to do with how Mexicans have always felt towards blacks as well as how they treat them? Thirdly, there would be no need for Ron Wilkins to fall all over himself trying to 'strengthen relations' if Mexico abolished slavery 300 years before America did and Mexicans were supposed to be buddy, buddy with blacks today. You're full of shit, Dilbert, and your involvement in topics such as this are moot as well as irrelevent considering you're neither black nor are you Latin American. I mean--damn--maybe if you at least acknowledged the TRUTH about so-called relations between lighter-skinned Latinos and Afro-latinos people wouldn't dismiss your ignorance but that isn't the case.

YOU NEED TO STOP THINKING YOU CAN UNDERSTAND HOW BLACK PEOPLE FEEL, WHETHER AFRICAN-AMERICAN OR AFRO-LATINO, AND WHAT THEY GO THROUGH ON A DAILY BASIS BY LIVING VICARIOUSLY THROUGH YOUR WIFE. YOU ALSO NEED TO STOP TRYING TO GIVE THE IMPRESSION THAT YOU ARE SOME KIND OF ACTIVIST FOR THE LIBERATION OF BLACK PEOPLE. THE ONLY THING YOU CAN DO IS STAND ASIDE AND LET US BE ABOUT THE BUSINESS OF UNDOING WHAT YOUR FOREFATHERS HAVE DONE AND EMPOWER OUR PEOPLE.
quote:
Originally posted by Romulus Burnett:

I just love to see you continue to lie about not having made certain comments...


Well, I suppose that this may help explain your reluctance to post any relevant posts of mine to support your claims.

Perhaps you are holding the quotes in reserve?

Let me know when you want to post them.

I'll be waiting, but not holding my breath in the meantime.
Your irrelevent, out of touch response to leart's comments is more than evidence enough. I've already proven the comments you made about moving to a third world country like Colombia like it's the greatest thing since sliced bread.

You LIED as you DENIED the fact that the two threads I posted ever existed, then you went so far as to DISMISS and MARGINALIZE the posts I had proven you made.

As for the rest of your comments everyone already knows you're as transparent as a GLAD ziploc bag. You talk out of the side of your mouth, making ambiguous, indirect, obnoxious little comments because you know you're so full of shit you don't have the capacity to make any substantial comments.

YOU'RE NOT BLACK. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT IT WOULD BE LIKE TO BE BLACK. YOU CAN'T FIND OUT BY LIVING THROUGH YOUR WIFE.

Dilbert, you can't even defend your uninformed, out of touch posts because you know you don't have a damn clue as witnessed in the very thread I posted. Every time someone criticizes you for making ignorant posts regarding racism between browns and blacks your only response is to make arrogant, obnoxious remarks and run away. You're full of shit, Dilbert, and you've been exposed.
Last edited {1}
quote:
I suppose that this may help explain your reluctance to post any relevant posts of mine to support your claims.


I couldn't help myself. I just love this line. You're right, Dilbert. You have no relevent posts. The vast majority of your posts are irrelevant, especially in regards to any posts you've made about race relations between black and brown people whether they be African-American or Afro-Latino.

You denied such a thread ever existed, then when the proof is presented you not only ignore the presented proof, you also can't provide a credible explanation as to why you posted such an irrelevant article now just as you couldn't provide any credible explanation then in the thread I posted.

You're transparent, Dilbert. Everyone knows your M.O.--Instead of providing any substantial commentary to support your ambiguous, feigned awareness of black/brown relations you post articles along with obnoxious, vague, snide, condescending little comments or you simply run away as a response to the legitimate dialogue of the members on this board who are black and have first hand experience of being discriminated against.

Neither you nor your kind have ever experienced institutional, systematic racism and genocide, so stop pretending you can relate or even comprehend the psychological ramifications by posting articles about oppression in Latin America against dark-skinned latinos and Mexico's irrelevent 'legacy' of abolishing slavery. Your continued involvement in the discussions of such issues makes you look that much more foolish due to the fact that you have to refer back to your marriage to an Afro-Latino woman to justify your otherwise baseless involvement in such discussions.
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by EbonyRose:
quote:
Originally posted by ricardomath:

Oh yeah...for an update, since you are so interested...we are currently in the process of purchasing a plot of land in Colombia. My brother-in-law was there today for Christmas planting some fruit trees for us that we want on the land. (Mangos, Guavas, etc, etc, etc...)

Everything is finally falling into place, and my wife and I are totally psyched that our plans are finally coming to fruition this Christmas! (There are no Christmas presents under the tree this year for us. The land is our Christmas present to ourselves.)

tfro

It is really quite an incredible coincidence that you would bring this up today, of all days.

We have been working hard towards this day for 11 and a half years now, and it has finally arrived! We are now the proud owners of our own little piece of Colombia!

dance

Colombia, here we come!



I hope they don't have the Internet there. sck


20
quote:
Neither you nor your kind have ever experienced institutional, systematic racism and genocide, so stop pretending you can relate or even comprehend the psychological ramifications by posting articles about oppression in Latin America against dark-skinned latinos and Mexico's irrelevent 'legacy' of abolishing slavery. Your continued involvement in the discussions of such issues makes you look that much more foolish due to the fact that you have to refer back to your marriage to an Afro-Latino woman to justify your otherwise baseless involvement in such discussions.


appl tfro
Dear Readers, 3

Do you know there are parts of the Hispanic community that black folk canNOT journey into?

yep. . .

here in southern california there are quite a few hispanic communities like that.

wanna know what happens when an INNOCENT black person unwittingly enters this particular area of the hispanic community?

Well. . .

THEY (meaning hispanics...& some, not all Wink ) will run him out of there by ANY means necessary. . .

UNFORTUNATELY, sometimes those 'means' equate to a fatal bullet for the unsuspecting black person.

Now, my question is . . .

is there ANY black community out there KNOWN for murdering folks (who come into their community/neighborhood) simply because of the person's RACE?

19

*insert 'jeopardy' theme song here*

*Fab tapping foot*

*humming*

*files & blows on fingernails*


3

Give up?

Me too 4

Oh, well, if you become aware of such a (black) community/neighborhood, please feel free to post that information here. Gee thanks. Wink
quote:
Originally posted by Fabulous:
Dear Readers, 3

Do you know there are parts of the Hispanic community that black folk canNOT journey into?

yep. . .

here in southern california there are quite a few hispanic communities like that.

wanna know what happens when an INNOCENT black person unwittingly enters this particular area of the hispanic community?

Well. . .

THEY (meaning hispanics...& some, not all Wink ) will run him out of there by ANY means necessary. . .

UNFORTUNATELY, sometimes those 'means' equate to a fatal bullet for the unsuspecting black person.

Now, my question is . . .

is there ANY black community out there KNOWN for murdering folks (who come into their community/neighborhood) simply because of the person's RACE?

19

*insert 'jeopardy' theme song here*

*Fab tapping foot*

*humming*

*files & blows on fingernails*


3

Give up?

Me too 4

Oh, well, if you become aware of such a (black) community/neighborhood, please feel free to post that information here. Gee thanks. Wink


In my late teens I had a friend who moved into a predominantly Hispanic community and less than a week got beaten into a coma with a crow bar for being a young Black male.

At that time the 8th street gang was taking over the area and 'clearing out' all the Crips who were competition for the drug trade.

Strange thing is, most of the Mexicans who behave in this manner are Amerikkkan born citizens. I have and still tend to get along quite well with direct immigrants(legal or illegal) from Mexico and other parts of Central and South Amerikkka. It's the one's a generation or two here in the United Snakes that I(and most of the people I know, including other Mexicans) had and have conflicts with. I'm not saying this is always the case for everyone, but it has been my experience...
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
quote:
Originally posted by Fabulous:
Dear Readers, 3

Do you know there are parts of the Hispanic community that black folk canNOT journey into?

yep. . .

here in southern california there are quite a few hispanic communities like that.

wanna know what happens when an INNOCENT black person unwittingly enters this particular area of the hispanic community?

Well. . .

THEY (meaning hispanics...& some, not all Wink ) will run him out of there by ANY means necessary. . .

UNFORTUNATELY, sometimes those 'means' equate to a fatal bullet for the unsuspecting black person.

Now, my question is . . .

is there ANY black community out there KNOWN for murdering folks (who come into their community/neighborhood) simply because of the person's RACE?

19

*insert 'jeopardy' theme song here*

*Fab tapping foot*

*humming*

*files & blows on fingernails*


3

Give up?

Me too 4

Oh, well, if you become aware of such a (black) community/neighborhood, please feel free to post that information here. Gee thanks. Wink


In my late teens I had a friend who moved into a predominantly Hispanic community and less than a week got beaten into a coma with a crow bar for being a young Black male.

As recently as the early part of this year, my young consin was shot to death for being in an hispanic area that he didn't know was 'off limits' to black people. Also, the young boy 'Jamal Shaw' was murdered not far from my mother's house (remember him?....the teen whose mother was busy serving this country in the military while her teenage son was being murdered in the streets by an illegal alien who was fresh out of jail?).

At that time the 8th street gang was taking over the area and 'clearing out' all the Crips who were competition for the drug trade.

Strange thing is, most of the Mexicans who behave in this manner are Amerikkkan born citizens. I have and still tend to get along quite well with direct immigrants(legal or illegal) from Mexico and other parts of Central and South Amerikkka. It's the one's a generation or two here in the United Snakes that I(and most of the people I know, including other Mexicans) had and have conflicts with. I'm not saying this is always the case for everyone, but it has been my experience...


Yep, and the thing is (also) a lot of the amerikka 'so-called' citizens are more often than not (in my experience) 'offspring' OR a relative of folk who are here illegally.

Goodness, I know of lots of black ppl who have had conflicts with illegal aliens, as well as their offspring and or relatives (myself included) and the situation isn't getting any better.

The sad & unfortunate part for us (blk folk) is they are murdering our youth. How many young black males have to die before something is done about this situation?

When will AMERICAN black folk stop feeling sorry for illegals to the point of excusing & miminizing their actions AGAINST BLACK CHILDREN? When will blk folk actually protest the treatment of BLACK children?

Those are questions I don't really expect an answer to

I'm just expressing my thoughts as they come. Smile

Personally, I don't believe there will be any changes

in time enough to save the young black males who will be murdered (in this fashion).

It sucks that California has a Mayor who actually got out there and protested WITH the illegal aliens stating: "we clean your toilets" or something to that affect. I'm thinking he must have a few relatives who are illegal aliens, himself.

Maybe his parents are illegal aliens. *shrug*

Nevertheless, he's proven himself to be a Mayor for the hispanic popluation NOT a mayor for all races. Roll Eyes

Anyway. . .

the black gangs are bad enough but NOW we have hispanic gangs murdering black folk as well.

No matter how you slice it (general you), that's waaaay too many folk killing on black ppl., in my humble opinion of course.


Here's one story on the Jamal Shaw incident:

19-year-old Pedro Espinoza is a member of the 18th street gang in Los Angeles, a gang comprised of mostly Hispanic youths which is widely considered the largest gang in Los Angeles. Estimates of their membership range from a low of 8000 to a high of 20,000.

That’s a lot of idiots with guns running around.

Perhaps someone who took a good, hard look at the situation would be of the opinion that what used to be a bright jewel of a city is in the later stages of being invaded. Or, maybe not. After all, if you can capitalize on racial division, there’s a future for you in American politics.

Pedro Espinoza undoubtedly felt good about being part of something larger than himself, being part of a group that is partly responsible for the migration of those with an interest in living a peaceful life out of the area.

Pedro Espinoza has been a member of the 18th street gang since he was 12 years old. This shouldn’t surprise you, as gangs often recruit kids that are much younger. Interestingly, Pedro Espinoza had been in jail up until the 1st of March, 2008, on charges of exhibiting a firearm, assault with a deadly weapon and obstructing an officer.

Pedro was reported as being “uncooperative” when employees of the state attempted to ascertain exactly where he was born, claiming that he didn’t know where he was born or where his family was.


Pedro Espinoza served four months and walked out of jail, despite the fact that the day after his arrest, authorities had contacted a relative of Pedro’s who claimed that Mr. Espinoza had been smuggled into the United States illegally when he was 4 years old.

I’m sure Pedro Espinoza was just here doing jobs that Americans won’t do, however. Right?

At about 8:30 at night on the 2nd of March, 2008, Pedro Espinoza and several of his friends were driving around, enjoying a Sunday afternoon in Los Angeles. The weather was nice. The birds were chirping. The smog wasn’t that bad.

The only thing wrong, in the mind of Pedro Espinoza, was that a young black man was walking down the street.

As you probably know, there is a tiny little bit of tension between black folks and brown folks in the city of Los Angeles, especially between black folks and brown folks who like to carry guns, do drive-by shootings and sell drugs to get by.

The young black man happened to be 17-year-old Jamiel Shaw Junior. This is possibly Jamiel Shaw’s MySpace page. Jamiel Shaw Junior, a star high school football player who was being recruited by Stanford and Rutgers, was walking home from a local mall.


http://pysih.com/2008/03/25/pedro-espinoza/
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by ricardomath:
When did you stop beating your wife?


First of all I don't hit women. I'm a bigger man than that. If you can't answer the question just say so and that will be the end of it.

For the record there was no hidden assumption on my part (as you claimed). It was a straight forward question. Your little diversionary tactics from the issue at hand won't work with me.

I see right throught this little stunt of yours. The fact is, you married a hispanic and you get defensive whenever you see any mention of latinos no matter how innocuous of a statement being made.

Furthermore, if you want to hurl personal insults and attacks on my family, feel free to PM me and you and I can get medieval all day long.
quote:
Originally posted by Malik:
quote:
Originally posted by ac9311:

In all honesty, at this point in my life, I am only concerned about the plight of African Americans.

It has never served us well when we create these fake coalitions with other people.


A goodly number of the immigrants in question are themselves Black. Why should we play a zero-sum game where in order for us to win, they have to lose?


With all due respect Malik,

I am talking about how, I feel, at this stage, in-my-own-personal-life!!!

I dont' feel in no way that other Africans must loose in order for us to win. I would love nothing more than for all of us to get there at the same time.

However, if said Africans are illegal aliens themselves, then they too should be deported with every other illegal alien. I don't differentiate between illegal aliens.
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by ac9311:

However, if said Africans are illegal aliens themselves, then they too should be deported with every other illegal alien. I don't differentiate between illegal aliens.



Admittedly, I'm biased, so i kinda don't feel that way. I feel that Africans, cubans and other afro-caribbeans have been given such a raw deal in terms of their ability to get into this country, while a specific group of unskilled workers is virtually thrown a welcome party at the border so the thought of a few extra black people around is all good with me.

i think that's what grabs my attention most about the situation. The uneven enforcement of immigration laws equates to a de facto black persona non grata policy. Would there be such a lax "oh we can't depart them all" attitude if 10 -20 million extra negroes flooded the country?


I didn't say it was fair, but that's my take on it.
Illegal aliens are not entitled to 'crumbs' in the United States.

For the record. . .

again. . .

The basic definition of an "immigrant" under the U.S. federal law is A NON-CITIZEN (ALIEN) LAWFULLY ADMITTED FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCE.

Therefore, any non-citizen who isn't "lawfully admitted' for 'permanent residence' is not an immigrant.

In other words, those admitted on tourist visas are not immigrants. Those admitted on student visas are not immigrants and those admitted on temporary work visas are not immigrants.

THAT is the bottom line.

Those entering the country ILLEGALLY are committing a crime, period.

Where there is no law, there is no order.
quote:
Originally posted by Fabulous:
Illegal aliens are not entitled to 'crumbs' in the United States.

For the record. . .

again. . .

The basic definition of an "immigrant" under the U.S. federal law is A NON-CITIZEN (ALIEN) LAWFULLY ADMITTED FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCE.

Therefore, any non-citizen who isn't "lawfully admitted' for 'permanent residence' is not an immigrant.

In other words, those admitted on tourist visas are not immigrants. Those admitted on student visas are not immigrants and those admitted on temporary work visas are not immigrants.

THAT is the bottom line.

Those entering the country ILLEGALLY are committing a crime, period.

Where there is no law, there is no order.


appl tfro appl

And this bears repeating!!!:
quote:
Illegal aliens are not entitled to 'crumbs' in the United States.


Over and over again!! tfro

Unfortunately, though, in many cases, they are given what is supposed to be our share, too. sck
quote:
Originally posted by negrospiritual:
quote:
Originally posted by ac9311:

However, if said Africans are illegal aliens themselves, then they too should be deported with every other illegal alien. I don't differentiate between illegal aliens.



Admittedly, I'm biased, so i kinda don't feel that way. I feel that Africans, cubans and other afro-caribbeans have been given such a raw deal in terms of their ability to get into this country, while a specific group of unskilled workers is virtually thrown a welcome party at the border so the thought of a few extra black people around is all good with me.

i think that's what grabs my attention most about the situation. The uneven enforcement of immigration laws equates to a de facto black persona non grata policy. Would there be such a lax "oh we can't depart them all" attitude if 10 -20 million extra negroes flooded the country?


I didn't say it was fair, but that's my take on it.


I don't disagree with the concept of what you are saying. You won't get any argument out of me in regards to the racially biased U.S. immigration policies.

That is exactly why I said I am focusing on our plight here in the U.S. Simply because I understand the intricacies here much more than I do of what is happening overseas.

If we had 1.5 million illegal aliens of African descent coming to this country annually, the borders would be sealed so tight that water couldn't pass through.
quote:
Originally posted by Shango67:
quote:
Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
With all due respect, it is this kind of thinking that has Black and Brown fighting over the crumbs that fall from the other man's table, as if crumbs will feed a nation.

EXACTLY!!!!


I have a question for you,

What happened to the black/brown coaltion of Puerto Ricans and African Americans after the Puerto Rican students got what they wanted in New York back in the 1960's?
quote:
I have a question for you,

What happened to the black/brown coaltion of Puerto Ricans and African Americans after the Puerto Rican students got what they wanted in New York back in the 1960's?


First, Puerto Ricans never got what they wanted in New York during the 1960's. I suggest you study what happened to the Young Lords in Spanish Harlem or a number of the Latino driven housing movements that were born in the Lower East Side and the Bronx. All of the tough anti-eviction housing laws that benefit NYC tenants were due to Latino squatters who lived in neglected buildings. And if it wasn't for their resistance, landlords would not be required to provide heat and essential services and habitable conditions.

Second, the Black and Brown coalition you speak of, resulted in the formation of the Black, Puerto Rican and Hispanic Legislative Caucus in 1966 - an organization of law makers that is still working in New York State today.

But I do not understand why you are talking about Puerto Ricans. Their history in this country should not be mentioned in the context of this discussion. For obvious reasons, immigration or illegal entry has nothing to do with the citizens of Puerto Rico.
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by Shango67:

But I do not understand why you are talking about Puerto Ricans. Their history in this country should not be mentioned in the context of this discussion. For obvious reasons, immigration or illegal entry has nothing to do with the citizens of Puerto Rico.



That's true. Puerto Rico is a protectorate of the USA, just as the virgin islands and Guam. They are considered legal residents but not citizens (I think). Prior to the elections, i ran across a few stories about the issues around pushing for either statehood, or independence. The stories i read were in conjunction with the push for statehood/representation in D.C.
quote:
Originally posted by negrospiritual:
quote:
Originally posted by ac9311:

However, if said Africans are illegal aliens themselves, then they too should be deported with every other illegal alien. I don't differentiate between illegal aliens.



Admittedly, I'm biased, so i kinda don't feel that way. I feel that Africans, cubans and other afro-caribbeans have been given such a raw deal in terms of their ability to get into this country, while a specific group of unskilled workers is virtually thrown a welcome party at the border so the thought of a few extra black people around is all good with me.

i think that's what grabs my attention most about the situation. The uneven enforcement of immigration laws equates to a de facto black persona non grata policy. Would there be such a lax "oh we can't depart them all" attitude if 10 -20 million extra negroes flooded the country?


I didn't say it was fair, but that's my take on it.


I completely understand this sentiment, and that is precicely why my beef is with the governement and the corporate interests who make unfair immigration laws and practicies to serve their interests in having a large pool of exploitable, and cheap labour.
quote:
Originally posted by Shango67:
quote:
I have a question for you,

What happened to the black/brown coaltion of Puerto Ricans and African Americans after the Puerto Rican students got what they wanted in New York back in the 1960's?


First, Puerto Ricans never got what they wanted in New York during the 1960's. I suggest you study what happened to the Young Lords in Spanish Harlem or a number of the Latino driven housing movements that were born in the Lower East Side and the Bronx. All of the tough anti-eviction housing laws that benefit NYC tenants were due to Latino squatters who lived in neglected buildings. And if it wasn't for their resistance, landlords would not be required to provide heat and essential services and habitable conditions.

Second, the Black and Brown coalition you speak of, resulted in the formation of the Black, Puerto Rican and Hispanic Legislative Caucus in 1966 - an organization of law makers that is still working in New York State today.

But I do not understand why you are talking about Puerto Ricans. Their history in this country should not be mentioned in the context of this discussion. For obvious reasons, immigration or illegal entry has nothing to do with the citizens of Puerto Rico.


thanks for nipping that in the bud. I was about to get really desturbed with the devolution of this thread...
quote:
Originally posted by Romulus Burnett:
I talked with an at the time co-worker who was Puerto-Rican. Not Puerto-Rican-American. I'm talking about just arrived over here on the boat.

She said Puerto-Ricans vote on the issue of wanting full citizenship and they vote NO to full citizenship every time.


bs

All persons born in Puerto Rico after April 11, 1899 are US citizens.

Moreover, all persons born in Puerto Rico after January 13, 1941 are natural-born US citizens.

Had Obama been born in Puerto Rico, he would still be eligible to serve out his term in office as President.

Your coworker was not talking about citizenship.
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
Puerto Rico voted on the right to vote in Federal/national elections(they have a say in the primaries) and for Puerto Rico to become more than just U.S. Commonwealth and become a state...

They do not pay federal taxes or income tax, except for federal employees.


yeah

Like I said before, she's straight off the boat from Puerto Rico. It's kind of hard talking to a person that completely mixes up the english language.
quote:
Originally posted by Romulus Burnett:

It's kind of hard talking to a person that completely mixes up the english language.


Yeah, I can see why it might be easy for somebody who is confused enough to say bullsh!t like...

quote:
It's a good thing you married her and swooped her up from the clutches of death.


...to also be confused by what his coworker tells him about "citizenship".

It helps to pay attention to what people actually say, and not just put your own stereotypes into other peoples' mouths.

(Not to be confused with NS's honest confusion above on the same topic, who does not claim to have been told this by somebody specific, nor attempt to place the blame on another person's difficulty with english for the error after the fact, by the way.)
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by ac9311:
quote:
Originally posted by ricardomath:
When did you stop beating your wife?


First of all I don't hit women. I'm a bigger man than that. If you can't answer the question just say so and that will be the end of it.



That is not an answer.

The question did not ask whether or not you hit women, nor did the question ask how big a man you are.

The question that I asked, by its very form, requires an answer in the form of a date and time, for example:

I stopped beating my wife at 2:15pm, October 12, EST.


(Note the initial word of the question, which I have highlighted in bold.)

Without reference to a date and time, the question has been left unanswered.

If you can't answer the question just say so and that will be the end of it.
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by ac9311:

For the record there was no hidden assumption on my part (as you claimed). It was a straight forward question. Your little diversionary tactics from the issue at hand won't work with me.


Well, I won't quibble about how well-hidden the assumption contained in your question is, but the form of your question certainly does contain an assumption.

Here is your question:
quote:
Why is it that whenever someone talks about the impact of illegal aliens you call them hate mongers or racist?


The question, by its very form, requires an answer in the form of a reason, that is, an answer of the form:

"The reason that I call people hate mongers or racists whenever they talk about the impact of illegal aliens is ...(fill in the blank).


There is an underlying assumption that I in fact do call people hate mongers or racists whenever they talk about the impact of illegal aliens, which is a false assumption. The question makes no sense unless I have already stipulated to your assumption.

That is what makes it a "When did you stop beating your wife" type of question.

quote:
The fact is, you married a hispanic and you get defensive whenever you see any mention of latinos no matter how innocuous of a statement being made.

Furthermore, if you want to hurl personal insults and attacks on my family, feel free to PM me and you and I can get medieval all day long.


That's better. By preceeding your statement with "The fact is" and ending it with a period, instead of a question mark, you make it clear that you are making an assertion, rather than asking a question.

(The assertion that you made is false, by the way, but that is neither here nor there.)

It is better to make your assertions openly and honestly instead of trying to hide them by preceeding them with words like "Why" or "When" and sticking question marks after them.

Assertions do not require such verbal (or written) decoration.
quote:
Originally posted by ricardomath:

quote:
Originally posted by Romulus Burnett:
I talked with an at the time co-worker who was Puerto-Rican. Not Puerto-Rican-American. I'm talking about just arrived over here on the boat.

She said Puerto-Ricans vote on the issue of wanting full citizenship and they vote NO to full citizenship every time.


bs

All persons born in Puerto Rico after April 11, 1899 are US citizens.

Moreover, all persons born in Puerto Rico after January 13, 1941 are natural-born US citizens.

Had Obama been born in Puerto Rico, he would still be eligible to serve out his term in office as President.



thanks for the correct info. I should have googled it. Wonder why no Puerto Ricans have run for President? 19
I prefer the whole damn truth and nothing but. 20

Under the Constitution of Puerto Rico, Puerto Rico is described as a 'Commonwealth' and Puerto Ricans enjoy a degree of administrative autonomy similar to that of a U.S. state. Puerto Ricans have been granted U.S. citizenship in 1917 due to the Jones-Shafroth Act. The act was signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson on March 2, 1917. U.S. Federal law 8 U.S.C. § 1402 approved by the President Harry S. Truman on June 27, 1952 declared US Citizens at birth to all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941 and all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship, but, since Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory and not a U.S. state, the U.S. Constitution does not enfranchise U.S. citizens residing in Puerto Rico. President George H. W. Bush issued a memorandum on November 30, 1992 to heads of executive departments and agencies establishing the current administrative relationship between the federal government and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. This memorandum directs all federal departments, agencies, and officials to treat Puerto Rico administratively as if it were a state, insofar as doing so would not disrupt federal programs or operations. Puerto Rico does participate in the internal political process of both the Democratic and Republican parties in the U.S., accorded equal-proportional representation in both parties, and delegates from the islands vote in each party's national convention.



The Jones-Shafroth Act (1917), applies to the grant of citizenship to all citizens of Puerto Rico. Also known as the "Jones Act -" or "Jones Law - of Puerto Rico", it amended the "Organic Act of Puerto Rico" created by the Foraker Act of 1900. (This "Jones Act" applies only to Puerto Rico.)

The Jones-Shafroth Act conferred United States citizenship on all citizens of Puerto Rico and revised the system of government in Puerto Rico. In some respects, the governmental structure paralleled that of a state of the United States. Powers were separated among an Executive, Judicial, and Legislative branch. The law also recognized certain civil rights to be observed by the government of Puerto Rico (although trial by jury, which did not exist in Puerto Rico's civil law system, was not among them).

The Act created a locally elected legislature. The two houses were a Senate consisting of 19 members and a 39-member House of Representatives. All were elected by manhood suffrage for a term of four years. Acts of the Legislature could be vetoed by the governor, but his veto could be overridden by a two-thirds vote, in which case the President of the United States would make the final decision. Matters relating to franchises and concessions were vested in a Public Service Commission consisting of the heads of the executive departments, the auditor, and two elected commissioners. A Resident Commissioner to the United States continued to be elected by popular vote for a four-year term; the Resident Commissioner's duties included representing Puerto Rico in the U.S. House of Representatives, with a voice but without vote, as well as before the executive departments in Washington.

Six executive departments were constituted: Justice, Finance, Interior, Education, Agriculture, Labour and Health. The governor, the attorney-general and the commissioner of education were appointed by the President with the approval of the U.S. Senate; the heads of the remaining departments by the governor of Puerto Rico, subject to the approval of the Puerto Rican Senate.

The Governor of Puerto Rico was to be appointed by the President of the United States, and not elected. All cabinet officials had to be approved by the United States Senate, and the United States Congress had the power to veto any law passed by the Puerto Rican Legislature. Washington maintained control over fiscal and economic matters and exercised authority over mail services, immigration, defense and other basic governmental matters. Puerto Rico was not given electoral votes in the election of President, because the Constitution allowed only full-fledged states to have electoral votes.

The impetus for this legislation came from a complex of both local and mainland interests. Puerto Ricans lacked internationally recognized citizenship; but the local council was wary of "imposing citizenship." Luis Muñoz Rivera, the Resident Commissioner in Washington, argued in its favor, giving several significant speeches in the House of Representatives. On 5 May 1916 he demanded: "Give us now the field of experiment which we ask of you. . . . It is easy for us to set up a stable republican government with all possible guarantees for all possible interests. And afterwards, when you . . . give us our independence . . . you will stand before humanity as a great creator of new nationalities and a great liberator of oppressed people."

Many Puerto Ricans believe that the Act allowed conscription to be extended to the island, which sent 20,000 soldiers to the U.S. Army during the World War I. In reality, however, the Act was under consideration long before the United States entered the War, and male residents of the United States (including Puerto Rico) were eligible for the draft whether or not they were U.S. citizens or nationals.

The act was signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson on March 2, 1917. Portions of the law were superseded in 1948, after which the Governor was popularly elected. In 1952, Puerto Rico was allowed to draft its own Constitution, which allowed greater autonomy as a Commonwealth.

Howard Kern was the Attorney General in 1914 and was appointed Acting Governor of Puerto Rico in 1917, appointed by Woodrow Wilson.



Add Reply

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