Originally Posted by Sista (Post 1420960)

mines

Originally Posted by Sista (Post 1420960)

clearly shows that at first, you didn't understand what I saying either.

Originally Posted by Sista (Post 1420960)

critiquing my post.

Originally Posted by Sista (Post 1420960)

Your original post in response to mines, clearly shows that at first, you didn't understand what I saying either. You later came back and broke it down using you critical thinking to express that I may have been speaking in second person, which I was but that was not what you originally stated.


Now your pride from my first direct post to you won't let you see where you originally made your mistake in critiquing my post. You must be some type of on line guru for greekchat and you don't want your status threatened by my analysis of what you did.

Originally Posted by Sista (Post 1420968)

Right ;)

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS (Post 1420950)

She also missed the question mark.

If she isn't talking about "acting black" and how nonblacks attempt to relate to black people, her entire point is moot and stupid as far as I'm concerned. So macallan was right even if he misread her post.

Originally Posted by Sista (Post 1420974)

I think

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS (Post 1420946)

Either you really are a psycho or just play one when you post on Greekchat.

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS (Post 1420972)

So now there's a such thing as "acting black?" :rolleyes:

It's Friday. Release your dumb so it can enjoy the weekend.

Originally Posted by Sista (Post 1420982)

This is so funny :D

Ha, not your name calling but how you resort to name calling and you present yourself as the reasonable one.:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Sista (Post 1420987)

people who they perceive as being real, hip, and trendsetting.

The highlighted part is the whole point.

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS (Post 1420989)

Ohhhhh...so that in the depth of your point and there's nothing substantial that comes before and after it? Well, thank God that you're in this thread. You've added so much to it. :confused:

Originally Posted by macallan25 (Post 1420932)

Watch MTV.........white people on their love to act black.

A White kid decked out in FUBU, Sean John, and Phat Farm with a white doorag, Timbalands, and a half sideways flat billed baseball cap, whom only listens to screwed and chopped freestyle rap, sips Crunk Juice and tries to talk like TI = "Acting Black"

Originally Posted by DSTRen13 (Post 1420971)

The only place you've posted at all on GC is in this thread. How about you back off of my Soror for a minute and tell us what you're here for anyway? Are you even a member of a GLO, or are you just here to argue and make yourself look ridiculous?

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS (Post 1420996)

So to get this topic back on course.

I've already answered the topic but to be more detailed, I'm still not picky on black versus African American or even African diasporic if we're going beyond "race."

On a different note that relates more directly to what macallan, DSTRen and I were typing about in the last few pages (and to what folks said before that):

Instead of just focusing on the terms (black versus African American, etc.), people should examine what being of a particular group implies or entails.



These are the negatives of the title "black" because they have been used to caricature and minimize a culture and contribution of a group of people.

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS (Post 1420996)

Instead of just focusing on the terms (black versus African American, etc.), people should examine what being of a particular group implies or entails.

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS (Post 1420996)

Instead of just focusing on the terms (black versus African American, etc.), people should examine what being of a particular group implies or entails.

Originally Posted by DSTRen13 (Post 1421004)

As well as where those implications come from - who creates and maintains them in our culture - and how to begin to dismantle them.

Originally Posted by Mz_Doc (Post 1421067)

Now I personally don't care what I am referred to as simply because I know who I am inside and where I came from. Because I have grown up in the US and do not have an accent, many people assume that I was born here so it would not cross their mind that I would be African. When it comes up in conversation, I will tell people about my background, but I don't feel it necessary to explain it to everyone all the time.

Basically to sum it up, what are your thoughts on this?

Originally Posted by Sista (Post 1420944)

Psycho? Well look what we have hear, the perfect gentleman :rolleyes:


In your original post, you asked me a question which was, "are you talking about acting black?" Before I could answer your question, you proceeded on to answer it for me.


Conclusion: Only guilty people tend to accuse people of what they themselves really are but would rather keep it a secret. You accused me of being a psycho. Only a Psycho would pose a question verbally or in text and the then answer his own question shortly after.:D

Originally Posted by macallan25 (Post 1421149)

You have issues.

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS (Post 1420996)

So to get this topic back on course.

I've already answered the topic but to be more detailed, I'm still not picky on black versus African American or even African diasporic if we're going beyond "race."

On a different note that relates more directly to what macallan, DSTRen and I were typing about in the last few pages (and to what folks said before that):

Instead of just focusing on the terms (black versus African American, etc.), people should examine what being of a particular group implies or entails.



These are the negatives of the title "black" because they have been used to caricature and minimize a culture and contribution of a group of people.

Originally Posted by Sphinx101 (Post 1421437)

I think it does matter in the grand scheme of things what people of African descent in the USA define themselves as. I think alot of the social problems facing our people today comes from this perpetual identity crisis... we can still feel the affects of slavery today, in our everyday lives, because we can not define who WE are!

You can't have a future with out a past...and so much of OUR history is unknown to us, so where do we go from here?

Originally Posted by Sista (Post 1421449)

You as a black person of African decent, how do you define yourself?

Or shall I ask, with all that you know about who you are and where your roots mostly stem from, how do you define yourself?


Or, are you, or are you not a mjority of African blood? Or do you not really know?

I define my self as African, but I will accept African American as a defintion to describe who I am. I know for sure that the majority of my blood work is a drect Kin to Africa and Africans but I was born and raised in America.

Originally Posted by Sista (Post 1421449)

Or shall I ask, with all that you know about who you are and where your roots mostly stem from, how do you define yourself? Or, are you, or are you not a mjority of African blood? Or do you not really know? I define my self as African, but I will accept African American as a defintion to describe who I am. I know for sure that the majority of my blood work is a drect Kin to Africa and Africans but I was born and raised in America.

Originally Posted by Ch2tf (Post 1421535)

Since you apparently know that the majority of your "blood" is predominantly African, I ask HOW do you know that. I ask this because A LOT of African-Americans seem to "know" that they are predominantly of African descent, and in fact that may not be the case. I think back to the PBS special that ran February 2006 where Henry Louis Gates Jr. did a DNA/bloodline trace of some African-American celebrities (Oprah, Chris Tucker, Quincy Jones, Whoopi Goldberg, and so forth) and while some of them did have a DNA connection to some peoples of Africa, others like Quincy Jones and Whoopi Goldberg (YES Whoopi!) did not have a predominant "African" Heritage as read through their DNA.

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet (Post 1421493)

I disagree with your tactics, but you are asking some poignant questions, something I had neglected to think about and I had forgotten.

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet (Post 1421493)

In my opinion, for us, we are defined by our actions and educational accomplishments. With good works and higher advanced degrees sometimes those things will yield a small and minor self-definition. It is constant work because it is self-evolving..

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet (Post 1421493)

Now, that won't stop ignant blonded weave wearing fat "gwirlfriend" up in the broke down with Black biracial badass "Bebe's Kids" working temporarily at Walmart who will still ask a "powerhouse sista" for her i-d-e-n-t-i-f-c-a-t-i-o-n on her $50,000 credit limited debit VISA card...

So, you have to take those things in stride, keep breathing...

Originally Posted by Ch2tf (Post 1421535)

Since you apparently know that the majority of your "blood" is predominantly African, I ask HOW do you know that.

Originally Posted by Ch2tf (Post 1421535)

I ask this because A LOT of African-Americans seem to "know" that they are predominantly of African descent, and in fact that may not be the case. I think back to the PBS special that ran February 2006 where Henry Louis Gates Jr. did a DNA/bloodline trace of some African-American celebrities (Oprah, Chris Tucker, Quincy Jones, Whoopi Goldberg, and so forth) and while some of them did have a DNA connection to some peoples of Africa, others like Quincy Jones and Whoopi Goldberg (YES Whoopi!) did not have a predominant "African" Heritage as read through their DNA.

Originally Posted by Sista (Post 1421642)

My dear sister Monet, there are people who don't mind my tactics and there are people who can't stand my tactics. I have been to many discussion forums where I am hated and the ones who do not like me make it known for all to see. Funny thing, those who absolutely love me always make it a point to contact me by email or Instant message to let me know that they absolutely love my tactics. It is not a difficult thing to analyze why it is that the ones who like my tactics want to keep it a secret. This is nothing directed towards you, I was just voicing in text my observations. I guess I observe to much and then I have the audacity to voice what I have observed. I am somewhat of a rebelious type. Some people don't like a big mouth Sista who interupts everything. People like to live in comfort zones and comfort zones to me don't make us as black people work hard enough, especially when it comes to each other. We seem as though we can not tolerate each other, yet we have for a long time and still to this day tolerate anyone who is not black. What this say's about us I can only imagine but what it say's to you, I will leave that up to you. Any way, enough said on that...please excuse me.

Moving right along...



For us, I get that you are speaking of decendants of African slaves right? If so, what exactly does our accomplishments define us as? From what I know, or from what I have witnessed, observational wise is this, Black people who are educated and who have achieved something, higher advanced degrees and so forth, they are looked at as to be different from the so called disadvantaged or disenfranchised blacks also, they have been trreated so called better by whites. In other words, they are the so called lucky blacks, in other words, Tokens.

It is just like how it was on the plantation after slavery during share cropping times, all though all blacks came from a family full of African and mullato slaves of African and white origin, if one of the family members got a scholarship to go to a college, most likely the mullato, that black person was treated as if he was a token amongst the whites who accepted him or her due to the fact that he or she was a college student, mind you, during that time, the Universities were white establishments with white educational values, nothing but negativity in those places were being taught about blacks, if anything about blacks was being taught at all.

This is the catch, those same whites did not accept those blacks who did not go to college and aspire a higher education, degrees and so forth.

Question: Just because some blacks got the opportunity to aspire a higher education and so forth etcetera, etcetera, did that make them any different from the other blacks, less? Did that make them altogether a different definition of black? How does education classify black people from other black people? Or how does education classify one to be African American verses Black, Negro or Colored? How did Africans in America go African slaves to Colored, Black, Negro and African American and how does education play a role in the scheme of this all?




Hmmm, that was funny!

Originally Posted by DSTRen13 (Post 1421622)

I did not see this particular special. So I don't know exactly what it claimed. But the problem with many things of this nature is simply that it isn't good science to claim that you can tell racial heritage through DNA testing. Good TV, maybe, but not good science. "Race" is not science - it's sociology. When the two start getting too mixed together (not that I believe they are ever truly separated, but it should at least be a goal), then things turn out very, very badly. JMO.

Originally Posted by Sista

I saw that show and I don't remember Whoopi 's situation but I am sure if her situation is what you say it was, I would have remembered.

Any how, if one is to test for African Ancestry, that test is different from any Native American or European DNA test, they are all separate so if Whoopi asked to be tested for her European ancestry, that is the test she would have been given. Another thing is this, depending on the test center they used, different testing centers have more or less African DNA. The test center they used just may have been one of those places that didn't yet acquire blood results from the Africans whoopi came from.

Any way, this is just something to think about, those kinds of shows are rigged and one has to be very careful not to believe everything they see on Television. It is not a secret that Whoopi only dates and marries white men, that part of the show could have been fixed in order to promote some type of propaganda. Who knows? Not that looks really say anything but I know this though, Whoopi look mo' African than me

Originally Posted by Ch2tf (Post 1422024)

I wasn't precluding that race is a "science" and I'm well aware that it is a sociological construction. I used the term race because it was the term floating around in the thread. So to clarify, according the the special, Henry Louis Gates Jr., a well known author and Harvard University professor, compared the DNA a group of well know celebrities against the DNA of a subsection of the WORLD'S population (the basis of the comparison is that currently there is a "file" of the DNA of the world's people that has been compiled since the advent of genetics/DNA testing). The DNA, or rather the portion of a person's DNA that has been shown to related to ethnicity/heritage was compared to the "samples" that were currently housed and given the volunteers as a possible window of their culturo-historical roots.

And Sista, I do remember the special-very well in fact-and Whoopi was indeed surprised/shocked/unprepared for the results of her comparison. And while I do recognize that no test is fail proof, motivations, etc. I do lend a measure of validity to research and "testing" completed by HLG, supported by Harvard University, and presented via PBS. But that's just me. If it was that great television, it would have been broadcasted on other stations besides PBS ;) .

Originally Posted by DSTRen13 (Post 1422035)

I'll have to see if I can find a copy - do you know the name of the program? It sounds interesting.

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet (Post 1421691)

First as an elder I am telling you DO A SEARCH. When find my posts, you will realize who I am and what I am about.

The last vocal person who stated their thoughts like these that was worth having a discussion was PHAShriner1906: Search his handle, and you may learn a little bit about this board. Eventually, he got banned. It was about depth.

You also must remember "who's world is it anyways"? What is the Cultural Asili and Utamaawazo behind alot of this? ;)

The direct answer to your question about educational accomplishment lead to definition is "NO", in the "end game" we are NOT in control of our own definition. We take short bits of time 5 years or less, that makes our definition as long as we stay healthy... But when you get into your 40's+ (as I am), all of this discussion becomes irrelevant. I no longer can fight this young persons' fight. Then, if you have children, most of this kind of philosophy, becomes irrelevant if you choose to provide for your children.

Now, "society" honors those who have been classified as with conferring an educational advangtage or can make tons of money (like a prize race horse). On the side of educational advangtage this process is longer and tougher and there is a strong amount of "tokenism" that must take place to get those higher advance/professional degrees. Call it indoctrination or conditioning. If one chooses to speak out most of the time he or she is older and established in life without fear or risk of ostracism from anyone. But, if young, <35 y/o, the domination over these minds is perpetual. Most folks lose there minds in this process and remain tokens to be bartered. The ones who question, lose funding from the government, call it a shakedown.

Now the 'hood may see us "Negros in the Ivory Tower" as ass kissers. Then, there is those in Underground Movement... Knowing the price that would be paid if caught, manuevering like the Mamba or Cobra... When those in the 'hood realize those in the Underground, you hear a different story. About how the "Truth Shall Set You Free"...

Because these facades you see around here are the first line of defense. You may be ready to fight that fight. But "homies" are ready to go nuclear. "Massa" can be soothed enough to reconsider... But all of us are living on borrowed time.

This is how deep some of these ideas go...

Originally Posted by Ch2tf (Post 1422024)

I wasn't precluding that race is a "science" and I'm well aware that it is a sociological construction..

Originally Posted by Ch2tf (Post 1422024)

I used the term race because it was the term floating around in the thread. So to clarify, according the special, Henry Louis Gates Jr., a well known author and Harvard University professor, compared the DNA a group of well know celebrities against the DNA of a subsection of the WORLD'S population (the basis of the comparison is that currently there is a "file" of the DNA of the world's people that has been compiled since the advent of genetics/DNA testing). The DNA, or rather the portion of a person's DNA that has been shown to related to ethnicity/heritage was compared to the "samples" that were currently housed and given the volunteers as a possible window of their culturo-historical roots.

Originally Posted by Ch2tf (Post 1422024)

And Sista, I do remember the special-very well in fact-and Whoopi was indeed surprised/shocked/unprepared for the results of her comparison.

Originally Posted by Sista (Post 1422668)

Sociological construction, please break down what that means to you? I would like to make sure that I am comprehending at the same perception, frame of mind as you? I just want to be sure of what that means to you, sociological construction?

Originally Posted by Sista

I am going to have to ask you for the source for which genetic testing center did Henry Louis gates use because I have researched many DNA testing centers and none of them have the worlds population of DNA on file let alone a subsection. It is not an easy thing to approach foreign people and ask them for their blood, so you can store it in your bank.

Any way, that wouldn't be an easy thing to do even if you had an interpret present. Some people will give up their blood for such a cause but not all of them. This is why most DNA testing centers do not have certain blood types and therefore cannot tell you about your ancestry if they do not have A DNA match for you on file. DNA testing centers for genetics makes that very clear before they test you for your DNA match.

Any way, how could it on one hand be world's population and sub section at the same time? Doesn't sound to specific or clear. I detect a huge flaw. Is it worlds population or a sub section of the world? When you had the test done, did you only test for African Ancestry or was it a much broader test like that done in the mini series?

I need a source to check this out for my self.
As I finish up this post, I am googling, trying to find that source for my self, have any suggestions on where to start?

Originally Posted by Sista

What exactly was the comparison?

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS (Post 1422928)

The term is actually "social construction." It should mean to Ch2tf what it means to everyone, regardless of how the definition is worded:

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS (Post 1422928)

Constructs like race are not biological but are instead social designations and result in certain social interactions and meanings. We create meaning in our observed differences between people and exaggerate whatever differences there are.
As Luther said "a chair is still a chair, even if there's no one sitting there" because we decided that there is a such thing as a "chair."

Originally Posted by Wolfman (Post 1422974)

The following link will clear up what was done and how they did it on the series, "African American Lives," which has been alluded to several times. They were well aware of the false claims that can be made concerning the implication of genetic data. This is why,above the solid tests they used, they employed an archaeogeneticist and a biological anthropologist, both experts on the population groups of the continent, to try to correlate geography/tribal group to the genetic data of the participants in the series.

An interesting (and funny!) aside: On this program a prominent biological geneticist consulted, a white prof. at Penn State, tells Dr. Gates how he had had this test done on himself. The results showed a genetically significant percentage of his ancestry was African. He told this to his mother who told him not to tell anyone about this. His mother had been keeping this family secret which he was in the dark about--although he had no problem with this "revelation." Genes don't lie; but we have to be careful to interpret the results responsibly. But, it seems to me, this discussion is about culture.

"African Americans" have been blessed with a horrific gift: a common cultural heritage forged out of the the experience of slavery and it's aftermath that's made disparate people/tribal groups into a basic identity, with various subgroups and identities. This has been the foundation of a political solidarity that made the Civil Rights Movement possible--something that has inspired peoples all over the world in their struggles for freedom. I remember talking with Palestinians in the Old City of Jerusalem and they commonly referring to me as "brother"--many of whom would, by phenotype, would be considered "white" in this country. "African American" culture is grounded in Africa but is also of the American experience. "African Americans" only have to travel to find out how American they are culturally; and non-Americans understand better than whites in this country how African American culture is at the core of "Americaness."

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/aalives/profile_gates.html
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/aalives/about.html
http://www.bsos.umd.edu/ANTH/faculty/fjackson --a biological anthropologist consulted on the series.