Prejudism

[Kevin]

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.

[Rudey]

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

Originally posted by ktsnake
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.

[Honeykiss1974]

Originally posted by RUgreek



You know neicy81,

I don't really give a hoot and holla if you're white, black, male, female, dumb, or smart. You're just a b**ch (or if you prefer an a**hole) for posting an antagonistic reply such as that. Are you trying to create a forum of intellectual debate or just being a snob at people. There are certain ways a person can reply and be respectful, since you don't have the decency for others, I be the first to tell someone off.
- RUgreek

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

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

Me thinks someone should apologize

[Kevin]

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

[Honeykiss1974]

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.?

[Rudey]

Originally posted by Honeykiss1974
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.?

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

[Dionysus]

Originally posted by Rudey


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

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.

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by ktsnake
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

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?

[Dionysus]

Originally posted by Honeykiss1974
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.?

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.

[lovelyivy84]

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.

Originally posted by Dionysus


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.

[RUgreek]

Originally posted by Honeykiss1974


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

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

Me thinks someone should apologize

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?

[Dionysus]

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

*End prejudism! Sorry, I had to.

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

[lovelyivy84]

Originally posted by Dionysus


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.

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.

[RUgreek]

Originally posted by Dionysus


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.

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

[Rudey]

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."