what exactly in that posts prompts a reply with definitions of rebuttal and forum? I just want to understand you're thinking, then maybe we can move on...

Tom has stated previously:

I feel everyone has bent over Backwards to work with this individual who keeps bringing it up and always has a rebutal for everything!



And his latest...

You fire at everyone.......

that is why I posted definitions.

yes, i read those a while back...

what is it about the definition of racism that bothers you?

Those definitions don't have anything to do with racism.

i know, i'm asking you specifically about racism...

Well in regards to the Rev. Farrakan someone sent me this:


"A little history:
The guy is horrible. Even the Nation of Islam, formerly the Allah temple of islam (ati), and built on the moorish science temple of america (msta) is built on hate. The msta introduced elements of Islam and foretold the destruction of whites with Timothy Drew (Noble Drew Ali) as their prophet. David Fard (Wallace D. Fard), the head of ati, was condemned to a psychiatric ward after horrifying detroit officials with a ritual massacre. Conditional on his release from the ward was that he shut down the ati - instead he lied and changed the name to the nation of islam. His disciple, Elijah Muhammad, tried to take control of the noi but met opposition (they were going to kill him) and fled to the east coast preaching hate for whites. Muhammad loved to milk the noi for money (he wore a $150k jewel studded fez) and invited the head of the American Nazi party, George Rockwell, to his convention to get an endorsement (which he did). Muhammad's son said that his father had "been worshipped as the final prophet of God for so long that he had convinced himself that it was true." His successors were to be either his son, Farrakhan, or Malcolm X (who many believe was assasinated by Farrakhan). His son wallace took over and changed the group by selling assets, moving more towards islam, and dismantling the fruit of islam (so called "bodyguards"). Farrakhan, not liking the changes, created a new noi. Ever since Farrakhan has preached a message of hate against whites and a truly anti-semitic message. He did leave the noi but if you go to noi.org you will notice his name plastered all over indicating he is back.

Oh and here's the science fiction aspect of noi:
Blacks came into existence 78 trillion years ago, and through the eons they lived an advanced and righteous life. But their paradise ceased 6,000 years ago when a deviant black savant named Mr. Yakub, also known as "the big head scientist," rebelled against the black gods and set about creating the white race. When blacks learned what Mr. Yakub was doing, they exiled him to an island in the Aegean Sea, but he was able to continue his work and within 600 years had succeeded in bringing the white race into existence, with a mandate to reign over blacks for six millennia.

Yet according to most blacks, Farrakhan is prominent, the noi preaches that blacks should not drink or use drugs, and so Farrakhan must be a great man. He already is on record with congress for being a hate monger and is banned from Britain, but that adds even more to his attraction."

I'd have to say that as far as my particular definition of racist goes that would fit the bill.

Neicy
 

Neicy, hun, Mr. Yakub told me to be racist - it's not my fault. You never actually addressed Farrakhan. Perhaps you'd also like to address the Al Sharpton comment I made earlier too...you know, for the sake of Mr. Yakub.

- Rudey
-- A follower of Mr. Yakub

Was calling Neicy a "B *tch" :eek: or an "a-hole" :eek: really necessary?

This is a HEALTHY, MATURE discussion! Its ok to disagree without the namecalling!! :mad:

Me thinks someone should apologize :mad:

True neicy engages in a very antagonistic, aggressive style of debate... but short of 'hun' he/she hasn't used any namecalling. Let's please refrain from that in this thread and try to keep this intelligent discussion going.

Thanks:D

So to go back to Cream's question, are they any additional suggestion as to how we can get a handle on racism, prejudice, etc.? :o

suggestion
 

Watch more tv...watching shows like Family Matters helps a lot to understand race relations. It even made me think Chicago was a pretty cool place before moving there.

- Rudey
-- I wish Urkel was my neighbor

Re: suggestion
 

Watch more tv? H*ll no! That's one of the worse things one can do, you know I believe Family Matters and The Cosby Show were the only shows that portrayed African Americans in a good light. And, those were sitcoms, in other words, false characters. Today, the reality shows with real people are in, and they are doing a very bad job smoothing race relations.

OK - instead of taking potshots at Tom Earp, let's do what has been proposed, neicy. If you choose, and since you're enamored with defining, what exactly defines racism for you?

It seems that you see it as an offense of power - that without the 'upper hand' portion of the deal, no one can be racist (forgive the simplification). This would, then, preclude (in general) the African-American community from being a racist institution, as Whites control the balance of power in the US; however, this would NOT preclude specific instances that could be deemed "racist" should situations arise where an African-American holds the 'power' in the situation.

This, to me, is indicative of a "capital-R" Racism, where you would be defining institutionalized Racism in America spefically. This would be things like denying education and job opportunities to blacks, purely because of race, or the criminal justice system being slanted in favor of whites.

Now, I won't argue against this sort of "institutionalized" racism occuring - in its purest form, it has been in existence since the time of the founding fathers (ie Thomas Locke's "Life, Liberty, and Property" being changed to "... and the Pursuit of Happiness" b/c only white men could own things), and even for centuries before that, unfortunately.

However, I think that perhaps it is narrow-sighted to infer that any race that has been abased to this point in tme cannot have racist tendencies of its own, in specific circumstances. To me, it is difficult to draw the line between supporting the institutional racism as a white person, or a sort of 'vigilante retribution' by specific acts of abasement or racism should a person of minority status be in a situation where s/he could perform such acts. To my mind, that sort of situation only pushes further the hate which we all (supposedly) are supposed to fight against.

Ultimately, this is not a purely white problem, or purely black problem. History cannot be rewritten, unfortunately - however, it does appear that within a few decades, white non-hispanics will not be the majority of the US population (ie less than 50%) . . . then it becomes interesting - does a higher integration of American society result in a higher integration in, say, Congress? How about the National Football League, where more than 50% of the players are black, but less than 25% of the coaches are . . . does that represent institutional promotion of whites over blacks, even though the African-American community is less than 20% of total population?

Or some other questions - to what extent does stereotyping connote racism? Is there such a thing as a positive stereotype? Is it possible to draw the line between the two?

Just some food for thought - we ARE trying to fuel meaningful discussion, no?

Get rid of rap/hip hop. Though it sounds good, it reinforces just about every stereotype of african-americans and it demeans women.
Unfortunately, it will not be possible to do so.

Re: Re: suggestion
 

Thosae shows, while doing a great amount to increase the diversity of black images at the time they were out, also did something kind of bad.

In the black community there has always been a tendency to limit artistic expression (yes, it is a stretch to classify most of network television as artistic in any way, but you still get a glimmer every now and then) in favor of promoting a positive image.

Artists like Zora Neale Hurston were sharply criticised in their time for depicting portraits of black people, which while they may have been closest to people in their own lives, supposedly set us in a 'bad light'.

Granted, there is no short supply of 'negative' black images in music (MTV/BET/ even VH1 for cryin out loud!) at present, but I think that in the black middle class there is still this idea that only certain forms of expression by black artists, whatever their medium, are valid. Like if something shows blacks in a bad light, even if it reflects another aspect of the black community, it shouldn't be produced.

The Cosby show, in its very success, sort of added fuel to this fire- it made representations of poorer/less educated blacks in television and movies very taboo- regardless of the character and the context, those figures will almost automatically draw fire. Shows about blacks can't win- if they are about poor families they find themselves without an audience, regardless of the quality of the actual shows. (This analysis is for non reality tv shows only- that is something totally different and reflects more the attitudes of the music industry's attitudes towards who black people are (angry, slutty, etc.) )

I think that is a DANGEROUS habit- art is about humanity and when an artist is imposed with a moral or social agenda, as often as not the art suffers for it.

Absolutely not, I knew it was not necessary, but it had to be said IMO. When people want to have an argument, you respond with answers to questions. niecy81 is trying to avoid answering what is plainly obvious, and instead changes the subject with other questions or unnecessary posts on what a dictionary is as if no one here knew how to look up one.

Of course it was wrong, but it was no more unnecessary a statement than hers (maybe not as harsh, but alas wrong). I have no problem apologizing, I'll even apologize to you if it makes you feel better, I'm sorry.

Can we get back on topic now?

I forgot two more...
 

*Stop referring to each other as "black" and "white".

*End prejudism! Sorry, I had to. :cool:

Like I said above, none of those things will ever happen.

First: I gotta say that on one level I totally agree- I can't stand most of current POPULAR hip hop. It's mysoginy and materialism don't represent me, while pretending to be a black art form it caters almost exclusively to teenage white boys' fantasies.

That said, this is what I was referring to earlier. I gotta say that the responsibility of art is to itself. THose images, while appalling in my eyes, have their place. To get rid of them would leave the cultural landscape poorer, if only because hip hop contributes and has historically contributed a great deal to defining the experience of urban Black Americans.

You can't get rid of hip hop, it's only a symptom of underllying problems. You have to get rid of the problems in our community that have allowed the images of black women to be degraded for centuries, and the family to be broken since the first African set foot on these shores.

Re: Re: suggestion
 

I watched the Fresh Prince of Bel Air, can't get anymore positive than that? :p

hmm
 

I was actually joking about the family matters thing...but i guess nobody got the joke.

In regards to hip hop, I doubt you'd say that if you actually heard real hip hop instead of that puffy ludacris crap. Try the roots and several others on the okay player tour (okayplayer.com).

-Rudey
--Mr. Yakub and I are going to gather at my place and watch Sanford and son tonight. I would invite Farrakhan but he definitely wouldn't like Mr. Yakub and since, in 1988, he said Jews created AIDS and deliberately gave it to black children, I take it he wouldn't like me. However, since Farrakhan claims that David Koech of Kenya, has discovered the cure for AIDS — a “miracle drug” called Kemron, I'm sure he can't be too angry about AIDS anymore. At the Million Man March, Alim Muhammad (NOI's Minister of Health and Human Services) presented a man supposedly cured of AIDS in one year and castigated the U.S. government for suppressing this discovery in its scheme to reduce the black population. I still don't understand why Farrakhan and Alim Muhammad are complaining so much about Jews giving them aids if they have Kevron...oh well...I'm sure Mr. Yakub will tell me the real truth. And by the way, I think I might purchase some food from the store down the street but Farrakhan might disapprove since according to him: "I mentioned [that] back in the '40s and '50s, some of the merchants who were Jewish...drew from the black community. And later they were replaced by Palestinians and other Arab merchants, then by Vietnamese and Koreans. These are people that generally take from the community but don't give back."

Re: hmm
 

So who gets to decide what is real hip hop? Backpackers?

I like The Roots. I like Common (hell I love Common). But they are just as pretentious and posturing in their own way as any Bad Boy artist. They just use a different schtick. Artistic freedom, like I was saying is more important than any of my or your opinions on the music.

Real hip hop? Who gets to decide what that is?

Re: Re: hmm
 

Didn't mean to present it like that...I just wanted to say there is more out there than just one type of hip hop.

- Rudey
-- Nice usage of the word schtick :)

I SPECIFICALLY stated what I thought racism was many pages back. Care to take a look.

Re: Neicy
 

Rudey read what I wrote about Farrakhan. Then come back and post.

When I speak of hip hop in this thread, I am talking about bad hip hop, not intelligent hip hop. I'm talking about the kind of "I pimped 70 big booty hoes in my Cadillac Escalade, see the 100g "ice" in my ear, the shine of my platnium chain and teeth will blind yo' eyes *bling bling*" type of hip hop.

why do you keep answering questions with, go back and read? :confused: Obviously I still do not understand what your opinion is so I'm asking you to re-state it again clearly here. If you don't know then say so.

Now, why do you feel racism doesn't apply to the african-american community after reading all these posts?

If you don't know what I mean, then maybe you should go back and read first :)


- RUgreek

Sweetie, the reason why people "can't read" is because someone does not know how to use the quote function. When you type inside a quote, everything is bold, therefore making it harder to tell who is saying what. Catch my drift?

This is why I put quotes around most of the messages.

It's still confusing and frustrating to read.

I gotta admit, it is kinda hard to read your messages. Maybe you could use the [ B ] and [ /B ] functions so it would be clearer? (Not being sarcastic here, seriously asking so that we can all be clear on this).

Thanks. I'll start doing that. :)

Please explain as direct and to the point as possible what you think right now. If it hasn't changed, don't tell me to go back and read it, just type it again. I'm willing to answer any questions, why can't you just answer this one simply?


RUgreek

Re: Ktsnake
 

His original beliefs were RACIST beliefs. According to Honeykiss, he gave up those beliefs and left the NOI. According to what you wrote, he went back, with the "but" signifying that he took up those beliefs again. Moreover, you say you agree with Honeykiss...honeykiss says he is no longer with noi and your language indicates he is - quite a contradiction.

Furthermore, according to your wording, those beliefs were bad for him to have left them - bad as in racist? I seriously have no idea what you're trying to say...why don't you, in your own words, "break [it] down" for me? Perhaps you'd like to read what i wrote about what Farrakhan believes. And for the record, Farrakhan is a part of NOI. Go to their website at noi.org to see that he is, if you'd care to. I'm not sure if you don't think he is, but this fact is for everyone. The NOI is built on racism...Farrakhan practiced racism...the NOI STILL practices racism...Farrakhan STILL practices racism. But according to you he gave up on those beliefs...those racist beliefs - meaning a black man was racist.

Wait Farrakhan wasn't racist? Farrakhan did not inspire hate in others? I suppose the KKK and Nazis are not racist then hun...you know the same people that ENDORSE Farrakhan...the same people Farrakhan claims to hate.

Stop telling me to go read...it's getting annoying. You talk in this very abrasive manner and people will respond to you in the same manner. Seriously, people write their responses and you respond in that offensive manner. Yet when people tell you to calm down you might give a meaningless apology in the terms of "sorry. I have a smart mouth". Sometimes instead you choose to tell people that they have no say because you were talking to someone else...well in your words, "This is a public forum and everyone reserves the right to post when and how the see fit.Folks can't accept dialogue...oh well".

On top of all this, you never responded to my post on Al Sharpton, so in your words my lovely beautiful neicy, "read what I wrote... Then come back and post".

-Rudey
--Mr. Yakub says BOOYA!

Re: Re: Ktsnake
 

wow
 

"I said Farrakhan no longer had those beliefs. I said "to go back" meaning to go back to the statement that the user posted. Not that Farrakhan went back. "

Farrakhan STILL has those beliefs. He is documented as saying a ton of racist remarks since. That's the reason why he is banned from Britain. Wait, how come you didn't address whether his remarks used to be racist? How about you go back, read it, and then decide not to comment just like you did when I brought up Al Sharpton. And even if Farrakhan doesn't hold those beliefs, which he does, his affiliation with the NOI which still holds the beliefs on Yakub as well as other racist beliefs, clearly makes him racist.

"I said that statement that I wasn't talking to him because he seem to misunderstand what was posted many times about Tom's postings. I can't make people interpret what was written. "

Once again, people have a right to post whatever they want in a forum as you said, so don't tell him not to worry about it. Or perhaps you shouldn't worry about anything people say that you don't like.

"You statement about Al Sharpton I did in fact read. I just didn't respond."

You know some people still claim that nobody has gone to the moon even when presented with a video of the moonlanding. They see the video, and just don't respond.

-Rudey
--I'm running out of things to say involving Mr. Yakub

Take it to the woodshed!!!!!!!!
 

Can we not turn this thread in "The Farrakan Hour" and get back to topic :rolleyes: ?

How can I, as an African American woman, get someone who isn't, to understand where I and maybe even other african amerians are coming from?

Actually the topic was whether non-whites can be racists in America. I cited an example (rather simplistically) and Rudey PM'd me the stuff that I put down about the Rev.

I think this is applicable because it is living proof that non-whites can indeed by racists in the sense that they think one race is inherantly better than another, etc.

So this is on topic:D

Ummm, no sweetie, I meant the topic of alleviating racial tension. I believe Cream put the question out there as well. And in regards to Farrakan, I can just as easily search the 'net and find a favorable article in regards to him and his words (FOR EXAMPLE I THINKS ITS REATHER HYPOCRITICAIL OF BRITAIN TO BAN HIM, BUT YET MANY VOCAL MEMBERS OF THE KKK, ARYAN NATION, AND OTHER ANTI-MINORITY HATE GROUPS ARE FREE TO VISIT AS THEY PLEASE). That is why I said what I said


How about checking out the NOI's homepage?
http://www.noi.org/information/history.html

****EDITTED*****

This is an excerp from a speech Farrakan gave on 6/17/02. Go to http://www.finalcall.com/media/mlf06-17-2002.htm to view it in its entirety.

" As a Muslim, I believe that I understand the Palestinian and Islamic point of view more than most Americans; and this is why I think that our visit, God willing, may make a difference. This is regarded as a Judeo-Christian society. The American people in that context have some difficulty in understanding the Islamic point of view. However, I have grown up as a Christian and love my Christian roots, and I have worked tirelessly for 25 years to produce unity between Black Muslims and Christians. And because I have worked for 25 years with those of the Jewish faith who are Hebrew-Israelites, who also are Black, I believe that we have a spiritual point of view that may be able to connect the three branches of Abraham--Jews, Christians and Muslims. It is out of this understanding that I truly believe that I am called of God in this serious hour for the sake of peace to do whatever I can to help solve this problem, for in helping to solve this most urgent problem, in serving the cause of peace in that area of the world, we can serve the cause of peace right here at home, and in so doing serve the cause of world peace. "

Now, does this sound like hateful rhetoric?

My point is that we all can use the cut and paste function to our hearts content but it won't solve anything. For example, how can you prove to Neicy that other blacks can be racist when she and others differ as to what the simple definition of a racist is? That is why I felt and still do feel that THE FARRAKAN HOUR is off topic.

Re: Take it to the woodshed!!!!!!!!
 

Unfortunately, I don't think it is possible. One has to take a walk in another's shoe in order to understand.