Can you be Christian and Greek?

[33girl]

caucasoidal

Is this a word?

What does the race card have to do with being Greek?

Do playing cards come in different races in different countries?

I'm so confused.

And on another note, the stained glass windows in my church showed Jesus as a brunette, and a somewhat swarthy brunette at that. (This is in a community of people with predominantly German ancestry.) Like naraht, the first time I saw a picture of Jesus looking like his name should be Lars Holmgren I think my initial thought was "who on earth is that?"

[agzg]

Originally Posted by 33girl

caucasoidal

Is this a word?

What does the race card have to do with being Greek?

Do playing cards come in different races in different countries?

I'm so confused.

I think the intersection between race and religion (particularly Christianity) is interesting... dekeguy seems to want to diminish the effect that slavery and Christianity's use as a tool in slavery still has on the African American Christian community today, and that could include membership in Greek Life Organizations.

For example, this sentence:

I would however suggest that if you are going to propose your interpretation of Christianity and its origin and development you might want to support your argument with historical fact clearly traceable through 2000 years rather than by simply playing the race card.

Is highly dismissive of the slave experience in America.

I find myself understanding Andre Turner's posts but that understanding might be greatly enhanced by paragraph breaks.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by agzg

I think the intersection between race and religion (particularly Christianity) is interesting... dekeguy seems to want to diminish the effect that slavery and Christianity's use as a tool in slavery still has on the African American Christian community today, and that could include membership in Greek Life Organizations.

Religion is the great opiate of the masses. What better tool to teach folks that their servitude and low status is acceptable than by teaching (by force if necessary) that it is ordained by a higher being who will punish all of those who refuse to concede the point?

American slavery certainly wouldn't be the first time religion or even Christianity was used for such a purpose. It certainly won't be the last. In the context of history, there's nothing all that special about American slavery in that regard.

I find myself understanding Andre Turner's posts but that understanding might be greatly enhanced by paragraph breaks.

I find myself thinking that he needs to get over it. I'm not sure how Jesus' race is relevant to anything in the Bible unless you're looking for a reason to establish victimhood.

Was Christianity at one time widely interpreted to allow slavery? Of course. Is it now? Nope. That single point might be the only point on which Christianity as a whole has monolithically evolved to. So yes, historically, religion was used as a tool of oppression for American slaves, for European serfs, for Roman slaves, etc. It isn't anymore.

So outside of the context of historical discussion, how is any of this relevant today?

[agzg]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Religion is the great opiate of the masses. What better tool to teach folks that their servitude and low status is acceptable than by teaching (by force if necessary) that it is ordained by a higher being who will punish all of those who refuse to concede the point?

American slavery certainly wouldn't be the first time religion or even Christianity was used for such a purpose. It certainly won't be the last. In the context of history, there's nothing all that special about American slavery in that regard.

Of course not.

Originally Posted by Kevin

I find myself thinking that he needs to get over it. I'm not sure how Jesus' race is relevant to anything in the Bible unless you're looking for a reason to establish victimhood.

Telling someone to get over things like this has certainly always ended well in the past.

It's not his race in the Bible - his race is not relevant (in the Bible). The depictions/lens through which we think of Jesus now and the lens of who is and has been telling/teaching/depicting him historically to other groups (does he look like you? do you look the same as your audience? does he look like your audience?) is where the discussion is coming from - at least that's what I get from Andre's posts. And I think it does make a difference

Originally Posted by Kevin

Was Christianity at one time widely interpreted to allow slavery? Of course. Is it now? Nope. That single point might be the only point on which Christianity as a whole has monolithically evolved to. So yes, historically, religion was used as a tool of oppression for American slaves, for European serfs, for Roman slaves, etc. It isn't anymore.

So outside of the context of historical discussion, how is any of this relevant today?

It would be irrelevant if we lived in a vacuum, but considering the historical discussion for things like religion tends to influence the current reality, it's extremely relevant. Just look at dekeguy's post - he's encouraging people to cite 2,000 years worth of historical discussion to explain why Christianity is an influence for individuals today.

Now, whether or not that means you can or can't be Greek... I don't know any GLOs to be outside of Judeo-Christian values but then I only know the ritual for one.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by agzg

Telling someone to get over things like this has certainly always ended well in the past.

I may be taking this wrong, but it seems as if he's making a lot of categorical racial statements regarding the slave master... let's just call us "the whites" which are just absurd. Devil's food cake:black::Angel's food cake: white and there's a racial causal link in the naming? Preposterous.

It's not his race in the Bible - his race is not relevant (in the Bible). The depictions/lens through which we think of Jesus now and the lens of who is and has been telling/teaching/depicting him historically to other groups (does he look like you? do you look the same as your audience? does he look like your audience?) is where the discussion is coming from - at least that's what I get from Andre's posts. And I think it does make a difference

Just following crass marketing concepts, race is certainly an aspect of marketing. Religion is marketed towards its consumers, so certainly it would be more appealing if we presented a black Jesus to a black audience and a viking looking Jesus to a Norse audience and so on. As to some vast cultural conspiracy of the whites to trample on the religious psyche of black folks? That may have been true in the past, which is why I say this is relevant in a historical context, but still being angry about it today? I would hope he'd have better things to do.

Now, whether or not that means you can or can't be Greek... I don't know any GLOs to be outside of Judeo-Christian values but then I only know the ritual for one.

The question is fundamentally flawed. There is no such thing as some sort of monolithic set of Judeo-Christian values. Some folks are going to have what they consider to be their values and others will have other types of values. Who is to say agzg's concept of Christianity forbids her from joining a GLO?

Define what Judeo-Christian values are in the first place. Only then can a serious discussion ensue as to whether you can join a secret society.

--and if that language is so important, you best not eat shellfish lest we stone you.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I may be taking this wrong, but it seems as if he's making a lot of categorical racial statements regarding the slave master... let's just call us "the whites" which are just absurd. Devil's food cake:black::Angel's food cake: white and there's a racial causal link in the naming? Preposterous.

The constructs of dark=bad, light=good, and their racial implications cannot be lost on you.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Just following crass marketing concepts, race is certainly an aspect of marketing. Religion is marketed towards its consumers, so certainly it would be more appealing if we presented a black Jesus to a black audience and a viking looking Jesus to a Norse audience and so on. As to some vast cultural conspiracy of the whites to trample on the religious psyche of black folks? That may have been true in the past, which is why I say this is relevant in a historical context, but still being angry about it today? I would hope he'd have better things to do.

I don't know that white men presented Jesus as black to black people - do you? I've already talked about "The Curse of Ham," but given its prevalence in the justification for American slavery, I'm willing to hazard a guess that in most cases, he was not.

You'd be amazed at the things people have a hard time getting over, considering the economic and social inequality we're still trying (or not trying, as may be the case) to address today.

Originally Posted by Kevin

The question is fundamentally flawed. There is no such thing as some sort of monolithic set of Judeo-Christian values. Some folks are going to have what they consider to be their values and others will have other types of values. Who is to say agzg's concept of Christianity forbids her from joining a GLO?

Define what Judeo-Christian values are in the first place. Only then can a serious discussion ensue as to whether you can join a secret society.

--and if that language is so important, you best not eat shellfish lest we stone you.

I'm using "Judeo-Christian values" in the socially accepted construct here (one God, be a good person, etc.). I don't think that, for example, Evangelical Christians or Ultra-Orthodox Jews identify with the "Judeo-Christian values" construct as it's accepted by society at large.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by agzg

The constructs of dark=bad, light=good, and their racial implications cannot be lost on you.

Correlation =/= causation. White/light= good whereas dark/black = bad is a concept which goes back to ancient times in western culture. One would be hard pressed to find a smoking gun of a racial link.

How about a business being 'in the black'? Is that a slight against Native Americans since the opposite of being black is being in the red? Where does this silliness end?

I don't know that white men presented Jesus as black to black people - do you? I've already talked about "The Curse of Ham," but given its prevalence in the justification for American slavery, I'm willing to hazard a guess that in most cases, he was not.

No of course they didn't back then. As I said, religion was used as a tool of oppression. Jesus would have to be the color of the master, etc. I get all that. It was a long time ago though. At some point, it becomes less relevant as to now.

You'd be amazed at the things people have a hard time getting over, considering the economic and social inequality we're still trying (or not trying, as may be the case) to address today.

Continuing to bitch about it without suggesting anything reasonable is, as you put it, "not trying."

I'm using "Judeo-Christian values" in the socially accepted construct here (one God, be a good person, etc.). I don't think that, for example, Evangelical Christians or Ultra-Orthodox Jews identify with the "Judeo-Christian values" construct as it's accepted by society at large.

I think they're very different. Utra-Orthodox Jews and evangelical Christians, you'll have to admit are pretty far apart on a lot of things. Sure, they agree that for the most part killing, stealing and lying is bad, but I doubt we'll find much mainstream consensus that secret societies are either good or bad. Most folks probably don't think about it. I have a hard time thinking there's an all-powerful/all-knowing God who gives a damn whether I'm a Sigma Nu or not, although I think He'd approve.

[Iota Man]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I find myself thinking that he needs to get over it.

This is foul as hell.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by agzg

Also, and I'm just going to edit because I'm the last post in the thread currently, thank you for the paragraph breaks, Andre Turner!

I'll echo that since I commented on it too.

Originally Posted by Iota Man

This is foul as hell.

Seriously, it could not have been said any better than that.

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Praise Jewish Jesus, you learned how to quote.

LOL. Let the people say "Hallelujah! Amen!" (to the quoted and just about everything else you've said).

[dekeguy]

[QUOTE=agzg;2161218]I think the intersection between race and religion (particularly Christianity) is interesting... dekeguy seems to want to diminish the effect that slavery and Christianity's use as a tool in slavery still has on the African American Christian community today, and that could include membership in Greek Life Organizations.

For example, this sentence:

"I would however suggest that if you are going to propose your interpretation of Christianity and its origin and development you might want to support your argument with historical fact clearly traceable through 2000 years rather than by simply playing the race card."

Is highly dismissive of the slave experience in America.
==============================================

Hmmm... "Highly dismissive of the slave experience in America". OK, I find this statement quite interesting. Rather broad and inflammatory but unsupported statements are made regarding a major World Religion which statements approach it from a very narrowly focused point of view. This view proposes that Christianity in the 21st Century is a construct of a filtered version of 18th and 19th Century white slave masters apparently designed to keep slaves "in their place".
Absent any compelling evidence supporting this argument yet to be provided by the author I am challenging him to support his argument by offering evidence drawn from the whole sweep of the Christian history and tradition as well as secular history and tradition over two thousand years that Christianity is a whip in the hands of these white slave masters.
I do find this pointedly offensive as it dismisses the message of Christ as nothing but rhetoric of oppression. It ignores the facts of history and the two greatest commandments given by Christ that we "Love the Lord our God and that we love our neighbors as ourselves".
I do not propose to tell anyone what they should believe but I will rise to the defense of what I believe.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by dekeguy

Hmmm... "Highly dismissive of the slave experience in America". OK, I find this statement quite interesting. Rather broad and inflammatory but unsupported statements are made regarding a major World Religion which statements approach it from a very narrowly focused point of view. This view proposes that Christianity in the 21st Century is a construct of a filtered version of 18th and 19th Century white slave masters apparently designed to keep slaves "in their place".
Absent any compelling evidence supporting this argument yet to be provided by the author I am challenging him to support his argument by offering evidence drawn from the whole sweep of the Christian history and tradition as well as secular history and tradition over two thousand years that Christianity is a whip in the hands of these white slave masters.
I do find this pointedly offensive as it dismisses the message of Christ as nothing but rhetoric of oppression. It ignores the facts of history and the two greatest commandments given by Christ that we "Love the Lord our God and that we love our neighbors as ourselves".
I do not propose to tell anyone what they should believe but I will rise to the defense of what I believe.

Good God, learn to quote. Your posts are ridiculously obnoxious to read (in fact, worse than those without paragraph breaks).

No one is attacking your beliefs. It's just that different groups and individuals have different experiences with Christianity and expressing those experiences is not an attack.

[Andre Turner]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Religion is the great opiate of the masses. What better tool to teach folks that their servitude and low status is acceptable than by teaching (by force if necessary) that it is ordained by a higher being who will punish all of those who refuse to concede the point?

American slavery certainly wouldn't be the first time religion or even Christianity was used for such a purpose. It certainly won't be the last. In the context of history, there's nothing all that special about American slavery in that regard.



I find myself thinking that he needs to get over it. I'm not sure how Jesus' race is relevant to anything in the Bible unless you're looking for a reason to establish victimhood.

Was Christianity at one time widely interpreted to allow slavery? Of course. Is it now? Nope. That single point might be the only point on which Christianity as a whole has monolithically evolved to. So yes, historically, religion was used as a tool of oppression for American slaves, for European serfs, for Roman slaves, etc. It isn't anymore.

So outside of the context of historical discussion, how is any of this relevant today?

Typical response from an arrogant white man. Getting over slavery is not possible, when my people are still slaves. Many people believe that the enslavement of black men, women and children is a thing of the past. The world believes that America has set her black slaves free from the bondage of their white slave masters. Even some black people in America believe that they are actually free from the mastery and control of their white oppressors. In fact, most black people in America today have been psychologically duped into believing that they actually operate according to their own will. These misled perceptions cannot be further from the actual truth. We are still indeed, in thought, and in fact, still a slave.

Does the slave master still have to whip, chain, and beat us? No. The slave master does not have to chain us down or beat us anymore, because we (as black people) are not doing anything, and we (as black people) are not going anywhere. We have freedom in name, but not in definition.

Your arrogant typical response to what I said doesn't surprise me. It also tells me that you do not even know what the word "slave" means. The word "slave" means "one who is dominated by some outside influence and having no personal rights or freedom."

The questions I have for my people are these: Are we dominated by some outside influence other than our own influence? Do we have our personal rights and our true freedom? Do we really know and understand what freedom actually is? Have we ever truly experienced true freedom? Do we even remember what true freedom was all about? What do we know other than what white people have told us? Nothing. What do we know other than what black folks have told us that they heard from other white folks? Nothing.

Yes, the physical slavery is "somewhat" over, but what about the biological slavery? What about the economical slavery? What about the sociological slavery? What about the spiritual slavery? What about the psychological slavery?

The physical chains were just one aspect amidst the many horrors of slavery. The chains are off our hands, but we are not producing anything. The chains are off our feet, but we are not going anywhere. This is because those physical chains were the least of our worries. We still have the biggest chain of all wrapped around our minds, hearts, and souls. Our minds are still locked-down, and it is our mind that controls our hands and our feet. Once you have the mind, the body will follow, which is what 4 centuries of bondage and oppression has done. Your arrogance, and ignorance explains why you would just tell somebody to "get over" 4 centuries of bondage, control, abuse, murder, rape, and oppression from your people. What your people have done, still very much so effects black people right now. So it relevant today.

Originally Posted by dekeguy

No, I am not pulling any race card, sir.
============================

Peter: Gee, you could have fooled me! Your whole argument is about playing the race card and attacking Christianity as a racist tool for oppression. You ignore the historical truth that Christians have suffered persecution for many many centuries in defense of the rights and dignity of all humankind.
============================

Andre: If I was, what would be wrong with me pulling the race card? Your people have been pulling the race card for the past four centuries and still continue to pull the race card that seems to always be in your favor.
============================

Peter: My people? Who are they, pray tell, who have been playing the race card for four centuries? I am an American, incidentally of mostly French origin and liniage. I am a Roman Catholic both by accident of birth and by considered and informed choice. The card I play is my obligation to follow the two great commandments given by Jesus. That card has been around for about two thousand years.
===========================

Andre: Now, you tell me, how many people with blonde hair and blue eyes were living in the Middle East during the time of Jesus? It is impossible for there to have ever been a blonde hair, blue eyed Jesus... something that the slave master instilled in the minds of black people.
============================

Peter: I suppose you missed my comment about the historical Jesus being swarthy complected, dark curley haired semite? No way was He a blond, blue eyed, scandinavian.
============================

Andre: My people were also directly and indirectly taught (by the slave master) to hate their natural black selves. "Black is bad". Wear white to weddings, and black to funerals. Devil's food cake is black and angel's food cake is white. If I know something bad about you, I could "blackmail" you. You can tell a little "white lie", but you better not tell a big bold "black lie". Do you see the psychology in this? My people were conditioned (by the slave master) to hate everything about themselves that was natural and black. We hate our black beauty because we were taught to define our own beauty according to these white, anglo, caucasoidal, European, westernized, beauty standards. As an example: a white, blonde hair, blue eyed Jesus. This means that anything less than blue eyes and blonde hair is considered less than beautiful. The further you get away from blonde hair and blue eyes, the uglier you get. This is what we were taught. This means that if you got black eyes, black, tight, nappy hair and dark black skin, you are the ugliest thing on the planet. What is sad is the slave master was successful in the brainwashing of black people and this still continues to this very day. As an example: Chris Rock’s "Good Hair" movie. The question I have to my people is why do we want to look like the slave master?...the murderous, cold-blooded, rapist "mutha-fucka". I said rapist "mutha-fucka" for a reason, not just to use foul language. I am speaking the truth. Let me define what a "mutha-fucka" is. A "mutha-fucka" is an individual who is the "fucka of muthas". The white man is a historical "fucka of muthas" around the world. A historical rapist. He was the "fucka" of our "fore-muthas". This is why we come in so many different shades of black now. I find it to be sad that we want to look like, and worship (the image of a white Jesus), the same image type of people who hung us from trees. I'm not arguing your religious beliefs. What I am saying is we have been taught that Jesus is white, with blue eyes, and blonde hair, when that is impossible.
===========================

Peter: Your argument seems obsessed with race. I was never taught to worship a vanilla Jesus. I was taught that Jesus was the Son of God who came to deliver ALL humankind and offer us ALL the gift of salvation.
So, following your argument, I suppose because I have dark hair and dark eyes I am ugly? I never thought I was great looking but I never thought I was ugly either. I would suggest that we both know and appreciate many women of great beauty who just happen to be Black, White, Asian, or any of the many variations in the range of humankind. Same goes for our male side of the human race.
I never worshiped a blond blue eyed Jesus because even when I was a little kid it seemed obvious that He looked more like an Egyptian than a Guy from Norway. In any event it didn't seem to matter, either He was who I believed He was or there was no point to it. What he looked like was an irrelevance when measured against Who He is.
I have no sympathy for oppressive slave masters who I figure had a lot of explaining to do when they faced Jesus, but I have great admiration for the countless thousands who proclaimed their belief in Christ at the cost of their lives over all of the many centuries that Christians have been persecuted for the faith.
==========================

Andre: I am not using any race card, sir, I am only speaking the truth. I have not lied about anything here.
==========================

I did not suggest that you lied, only that your argument seems based on unsupported and inflammatory statements. I suggested that you might want to approach the question of 21st Century Christianity in light of two thousand years of carefully preserved multi-source historical Christianity.
You might remember that some of the greatest fathers of the church were not Northern European but Asian and African. The greatest philosopher of the early church was Saint Augustine of Hippo, African bishop of an African diocese.

I didn't say anything about the Bible not being true based on its history. What I said was that there is truth in the Bible and the teachings of Jesus. But, the true teachings of Jesus is not what the slave master taught us. There is truth in the Bible if you can break through all of the symbolism. The teachings of Jesus are very valuable, but that is not what the white man taught us. I said earlier that this is not the teaching that the slave master has given the preacher to preach.

No, I am not obsessed with race. Your people seem to be the only people obsessed with race,to the point where it looks to be a sickness to me. What I am doing here is telling the truth. The first thing a white man wants to say is that it isn't his fault. No it is not your fault, but are you reaping the benefits of white America, sir? Yes, you are. Since you are French why don't you refer to yourself as a European American? Most of your people are of European decent. Since this is true, why do your people refer to every other race of people that are not white, as African American, Asian American, etc. and even refer to Americans themselves as Native American, but yet refer to yourselves as white, or Caucasian?

No, what you do not understand is that we have been taught Christianity by the slave master. Is King James a Saint? Why does he have the authority to add his two cents to the Bible? This is what we were taught. We were taught this and we accepted this with no questions asked. We have accepted the sun-up to sun-down hard slave labor, with no questions asked. We have accepted our own families being broken-up and sold away with no questions asked, the very reason why black families are still to this very day, broken-up. We have accepted the brutal raping of our mothers and our sisters, with no questions asked. We have accepted the beating, dismembering, hanging, lynching, of our brothers and our fathers with no questions asked. Yes, and from the same man who has given us all this pure hell, we accepted "his teachings" of Christianity with no questions asked. Yes, this is the absolute truth, sir!

So you and I both know that we did not receive the "true" word of the "true" God from your people. Think about it. Why would a white man, who spends more than half of his time trying to kill us and our minds (which he has succeeded in doing), turn around to spend the other half of his time trying to bring our minds back to life? That wouldn't make any sense, at all. How could the same man, who has taken on the mind, heart, and will of a devil, turn around and show us the straight and narrow path to God? Think about that real good. I would be a fool to believe anything a devil says to me about God, based on "his teachings".

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Andre Turner

Your arrogance, and ignorance explains why you would just tell somebody to "get over" 4 centuries of bondage, control, abuse, murder, rape, and oppression from your people. What your people have done, still very much so effects black people right now. So it relevant today.

Only 4 centuries? Pick up a history book and look up European feudalism. Somehow those former medieval serfs (slaves) are now perfectly upwardly mobile and arguably more free than we are in the U.S. in many respects. The ancient world existed for far more than 400 years and slavery right along with it. Somehow, the ancestors of slaves weren't whining in the forums about some sort of metaphorical servitude still being imposed on them.

Sure, black folks in the U.S. have some serious socioeconomic challenges and yes, discrimination happens. But is it slavery? Hell no. Do you have less freedom than I do? I don't see it. Cite facts, not silly metaphors.

What biological, "economical" [sic], psychological, sociological, religious slavery is being imposed on you right now? Did "the whites" tell you how you have to think, pray, spend your money, etc. as some monolithic and malevolent entity? Or do you just not like the culture you were born into?

It is estimated that at the beginning of the 19th century, 75% of the world's population existed under some form of bondage. Slavery wasn't abolished in Europe until the mid 1800s. Somehow their former slaves' progeny have actually gotten over it.

Slavery was a horrible thing and a blight on this nation's history, but aside from some metaphors, what freedoms are you lacking today?

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Only 4 centuries? Pick up a history book and look up European feudalism. Somehow those former medieval serfs (slaves) are now perfectly upwardly mobile and arguably more free than we are in the U.S. in many respects. The ancient world existed for far more than 400 years and slavery right along with it. Somehow, the ancestors of slaves weren't whining in the forums about some sort of metaphorical servitude still being imposed on them.

Sure, black folks in the U.S. have some serious socioeconomic challenges and yes, discrimination happens. But is it slavery? Hell no. Do you have less freedom than I do? I don't see it. Cite facts, not silly metaphors.

What biological, "economical" [sic], psychological, sociological, religious slavery is being imposed on you right now? Did "the whites" tell you how you have to think, pray, spend your money, etc. as some monolithic and malevolent entity? Or do you just not like the culture you were born into?

It is estimated that at the beginning of the 19th century, 75% of the world's population existed under some form of bondage. Slavery wasn't abolished in Europe until the mid 1800s. Somehow their former slaves' progeny have actually gotten over it.

Slavery was a horrible thing and a blight on this nation's history, but aside from some metaphors, what freedoms are you lacking today?

Shut the hell up.

That is the nicest phrasing that I could think of.

[Andre Turner]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Only 4 centuries? Pick up a history book and look up European feudalism. Somehow those former medieval serfs (slaves) are now perfectly upwardly mobile and arguably more free than we are in the U.S. in many respects. The ancient world existed for far more than 400 years and slavery right along with it. Somehow, the ancestors of slaves weren't whining in the forums about some sort of metaphorical servitude still being imposed on them.

Sure, black folks in the U.S. have some serious socioeconomic challenges and yes, discrimination happens. But is it slavery? Hell no. Do you have less freedom than I do? I don't see it. Cite facts, not silly metaphors.

What biological, "economical" [sic], psychological, sociological, religious slavery is being imposed on you right now? Did "the whites" tell you how you have to think, pray, spend your money, etc. as some monolithic and malevolent entity? Or do you just not like the culture you were born into?

It is estimated that at the beginning of the 19th century, 75% of the world's population existed under some form of bondage. Slavery wasn't abolished in Europe until the mid 1800s. Somehow their former slaves' progeny have actually gotten over it.

Slavery was a horrible thing and a blight on this nation's history, but aside from some metaphors, what freedoms are you lacking today?

The more you post, the more you paint yourself to look even more arrogant and ignorant, just like your white brothers. I cannot expect you to believe that we are still enslaved, because you and your people are not oppressed. You now, once again, are spreading your lies, trying to place yourselves in the same boat we are in and have been in for over four centuries, -bondage, which is now within our minds. The body is only going to mimic what the mind is filled with. Our minds are full of over 400 years of what I have already mentioned, therefore we are still enslaved. Is your mind filled with this same false teaching? No it is not, therefore I don't expect you to understand, or even care, which explains this post and your "get over it" remark from your previous post.

I also see what you are trying to do here, although I refuse to buy any of it. If I was a white man like you, living in this Day of Judgment, with an entire planet full of red, yellow, brown, and black people that are angry as hell at me for my many crimes and atrocities committed against them for thousands of years, I'd all of a sudden be friendly too, trying to place myself in the same boat they are in, like you have done here. What I am saying here is white folks will openly accept black folks as long as we are what your people want us to be. Slaves! As long as we are watered-down, weak-minded, submissive, butt-kissing, boot-licking, fiddle-playing, foot-shuffling, shoe-shining, tongue-biting (which I refuse to do) porch-dancing, bent-over, house-negro type of colored person, etc. white folks will bend over backwards for an Uncle Tom like this.

Ever since we have been on the blood-soaked soil of America, we have been catching all types of hell from the hell raiser (your people). Yes, we have caught hell from these devils, but we have kept the hell that we have caught. So as a result, we have become hell raisers ourselves, second only to "The Hell Raiser". I believe that we should give this hell back, to whom it is that we caught it from, - your people.

We were not these "niggas", bitches, punks, and hoes (words that we call ourselves today, that we have learned from your people through four centuries of false teaching) we are today, before we were kidnapped to this country. This mentality and character does not belong to us, so I believe that we should give it back. We should return it to the sender, -your people. We need to:

Give the white man back his body-poisoning addictive drinks. Return to sender.

Give the white man back his cancer-causing cigarettes. Return to sender.

Give the white man back his death plaguing crack-pipe. Return to sender.

Give the white man back his needle sticking heroin drug. Return to sender.

Give the white man back his blue-eyed contact lenses. Return to sender.

Give the white man back his hair-straitening chemicals. Return to sender.

Give the white man back his lying, thieving, deceiving, whole criminal mind. Return to sender.

Give the white man back his disrespecting, chauvinistic, attitude toward women. Return to sender.

Give the white man back his greedy, cut-throat, materialistic, sick mentality. Return to sender.

Give the white man back his egotistical, insecure, jealous and envious weak frame of mind. Return to sender.

Give the white man back his death-to-go fast-food diet. Return to sender.

Give the white man back his blue-eyed, blonde, bimbo, brain-less, butt-less, skinny, little weak white woman. You can have that back with a quickness. PLEASE RETURN TO SENDER.

I believe we need to give all this madness back to the white man. Give all this hell back to whom it is that we have caught it from. Just because we caught it doesn't mean we should keep it. Because we have chosen to keep it, keeps us in slavery and bondage. We need to give back his loose low-life morals, because they are not ours. But, accept only what is our own and be only what is ourselves. We need to accept our own divine righteous morals and be our own righteous divine black selves. And anything other than that, give it back. But this is not possible, because this is what your people are subconsciously afraid of.

Any time someone has to spend 90% of their time (by any means necessary) trying to hold another person down, he fears that person. So yes, WE are very much so STILL in slavery, lacking the same freedom you have TODAY, and living the lies your people have taught us. Why are there so many black people in prison? Why are more black people put to death than white people? Why are there more black on black crimes in this country than any other race of people? Why are there more black people living in poverty than white people? Why are there so many fatherless black children in this country? Why are there more black families that are broken up than white families? Why are Amercians living on reservations? I don't refer to them as "Native Amercians" because they are not. And then your people have the balls to refer to other folks as illegal aliens.

No, we DO NOT have the same freedom that your people have TODAY. You are arrogant and ignorant, so I do not expect you to care or understand how we are enslaved to this very day.