On this date: April 6th

A few years ago, I saw one of Bill Maher's 'Politically Incorrect' segments. One of his guests was the wife of the Courtney Vance.

Maher mentioned something Bird Expedition that prompted her to identify Matthew Henson as the first man (meaning of course the first non-native) to reach the North Pole.

Maher took strong exception, and alluded to the tendency for African Americans to 'claim credit for things'.

There was a convenient commercial break.

When the program returned, Maher apologized for his ignorance, and for his challenge to her personally and African Americans in general.

PEACE

Jim Chester

Fine, you and I, more times than less, disagreed about certain views of history. Being an avid fan of history, I too was surprised about the importance of Matthew Henson being on Peary's expedition. Despite the relegated title of 'employee', makes you wonder whether Robert Peary could have even done it without him.

Another strange note; I find the soft cries of racism with Henson faded glory and the 'dumb-downing' of the Norwegian, Roald Amundsen, eerily similar. Roald Amundsen (you know this-just updating those that don't) reached the south pole first. However, because he wasn't British. His accomplishment was ignored. And the credit when to Robert Falcon Scott (a Brit) who reach the south pole a month later, but he and his expedition mates all died during the return journey (2 miles from the ship).
For many years, even after his death, Amundsen was never acknowledged as the first man to reach the south pole.

Is the case with Amundsen; nationalitic. And Henson; racist. Or are the attitudes so similar that they should be combined and called something completely different?

James - I would have loved to see Bill Maher's face when he had to apologize. The look would be similar to the one Bill O'Reilly gives when he apologizes. Despite them being Left and Right polar opposites, they get the job done and make the news entertaining (which sadly how Americans want their news).

quote:

The_Congo--(which sadly how Americans want their news).

.

What a broad, gapping assumption...and an opinion that I do not share...!

Is that all you can say? Oh boy, the wanting of the hijacking of a thread.

Then can you explain to me why 'opinioniated', political shows have had strong ratings in the last ten years and why the traditional newscast rating has significantly drop.

Do not use the cable issue. If the newscast is good; then people would get cable and still watch the newscast of the three big networks.

quote:

the_Congo--Fine, you and I, more times than less, disagreed about certain views of history.

I have no viable to reason to argue about history, it is what it is. Doing so would be similar to arguing w/a stop sign.

My post is here as an FYI, not to be grilled by the embittered the_Congo!

1. I would suggest you do your homework around the board and review the type of posts that I generate/respond to -- to get a better idea of just how I think and why.

2. Contact Black Facts or AA Registry [i.e. the source of these findings] and argue with them, 'cause I have not a clue as to where you are going nor do I care....!

PS After a thorough research I note that all your posts are [RE:]. You have not brought forth one single new idea or concept on your own, since you've been here--but rather sniper/ bullied your way thru this site.

And, how equally confused and foolish you are to cut/paste that animated picture "that's racist" from the smiley file onto a black site.

A thorough research into the philosophy of racism would clue you in to the fact that racist remarks only come out of the mouths of white people and that because we are "vor" -- victims of racism -- we shall never have the power to be preceived, conceived, or received as such!


http://africanamerica.org/eve/forums?a=userposts&s=...tType=1&u=9331074553

YOU ARE OFF TOPIC:

Your 1st post: Main subject matter.
My 1st post: A response to your subject matter.
Your 2nd post: A sentence that is OFF TOPIC:

"What a broad, gapping assumption...and an opinion that I do not share...!"

SO YOU ARE OFF YOUR OWN TOPIC.


VOR?






And the rest of your posting... well, let me give you a visual.





Let me help you get your OWN topic back on track without you HIJACKING it... again.

The events that took place after the treks to the north pole obviously shows that Henson was much more of an honorable man than Pearly or Cook.

See that wasn't very hard, was it?

quote:

A thorough research into the philosophy of racism would clue you in to the fact that racist remarks only come out of the mouths of white people and that because we are "vor" -- victims of racism -- we shall never have the power to be preceived, conceived, or received as such!

I would rather deal with definitions than philosophy. Philosophy is limited to a small group of people who discuss a matter and, quite frankly, if the facts aren't set straight early on, the group can be way off base (such as the whole pyramids and spacemen thing.


Definitions are things that are set in stone.

rac·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rszm)
n.
The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

AGAIN! LOL

Do you see the word BLACK or AFRICAN-AMERICAN, or AFRO-NEGRO in the definition of racism. Get a grip.

What you talk about is...





Too bad the only response you can do is...
Probably because its too logical for you to understand.

quote:

Originally posted by The_Congo:

Definitions are things that are set in stone.

I was under the impression that definitions were changed periodically according to societal use.....

quote:

rac·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rszm)
n.
The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

AGAIN! LOL

Do you see the word BLACK or AFRICAN-AMERICAN, or AFRO-NEGRO in the definition of racism. Get a grip.

May I ask who defines racism? the abuser or the victim?

quote:

What you talk about is...





Too bad the only response you can do is...
Probably because its too logical for you to understand.

Even if all you say were to be true.....

are you here to educate her? or attack her? if it is the former.... then there are better ways for you to help her understand your position...... if it is the latter then what has she done to you for you to attack her intelligence to make your point?


I was following many of her posts.... and I'm just simply perplexed by the negative energy you're bringing to your responses......


Peace,
Virtue

Virtue-verbal discourse is difficult if not impossible with this one.

I will however, continue to present the facts, daily.

Thanks anyway...!

virtue: "I was under the impression that definitions were changed periodically according to societal use....."
=====================================

I feel your logic is a sound one. Yes, I also do believe that definitions were changed periodically according to social use.


virtue: " May I ask who defines racism? the abuser or the victim?"
=================================
Neither. Webster. Every year Webster's Dictionary adds new words African-Americans create (as well as from other races). However, the definition that I got (which, of course, comes from Webster) has no indication of Racism being strictly White against Black. Easily racism is a two-way street. I was just educating Fine of this fact.


virtue: "are you here to educate her?.... there are better ways for you to help her understand your position......"
=============================
Education is the key. My statement to JWC had a one sentence remark of Americans wanting their news to be entertaining. She said that statement was 'broad'. I wanted her to elaborate and she claims I was hijacking the thread? Then, attempts to pyscho analyse my posts? ? ? Who is being the attacker? Fine, obviously. I want to discuss about Henson, she wants to discuss my previous posts. Who is attacking who? Fine knows.

Hijacking is your modus operendi...but not matter, I will continue to post what is already proven fact....the_congo!

...then and I will continue to be educated by Fine and, at the same time, educate Fine.



Fine taught me: About Matthew Henson.

I taught Fine: The definition of Racism.

I saw a special on Matthew Henson.

In it there was this debate on whether Matthew Henson or Robert E. Peary TRULY discovered the North Pole.

However both Henson and Peary had FEELINGS and shared those FEELINGS, intimately with the Iniuit women in the far North.

There was a fair but dark skin Inuit child and there was a white-skinned irregular-faced Inuit child born. These children grew up and wanted to know more about their heritage.

Even the elderly Inuit at the time of Matthew Henson and Robert E. Peary said these CHILDREN looked like them.

Both children took DNA test that match their ancestry and parentage to both Matthew Henson and Robert E. Peary.

Both children went to Washington DC where I believe the Smithsonian was honoring Henson and Peary. When the fair but dark skin Inuit descendant of Matthew Henson met the family of the current Henson, he was WARMLY recieved and EMBRACED. They both went to the gravesite of Matthew Henson.

Now with the white-skinned irregular Inuit child of Robert E. Peary, met the family of his descendants the Pearys, he met a COLD reception and they were not WILLING to EMBRACE him.

At least for both the INUITS accept them BOTH but the fair dark-skin ONE knows he has relatives beyond the Arctic which is in the MIDST to MELT.

Thanks to WHO?

White Gods.

I feel really SAD for the white-skinned irregular Inuit.


Where is the love in the land of WHITE GODS and their MINIONS.

I guess thats what we get for following those WHITE GODS.

That's white folks for yah!

I knew about Matt's intimacies but not Peary's..

Thanks, DE!!!

Both ignorant statements can be summed up like this:

If you observe, Easter have a great weekend--Virtue and Dusty....!