Prejudism

[lovelyivy84]

Originally posted by Rudey
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).

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?

[Rudey]

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

Originally posted by lovelyivy84


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?

[neicy81]

Originally posted by RUgreek
i know, i'm asking you specifically about racism...

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

[neicy81]

Originally posted by 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

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

[Dionysus]

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.

[neicy81]

Originally posted by KSig RC


If the comments I made about Tom weren't about YOU, then don't worry about it.Not that hard to follow a thread, but for some it is. I explained what racism was to ME many pages back.Start reading.


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?

[RUgreek]

why do you keep answering questions with, go back and read? 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

[Dionysus]

Originally posted by neicy81


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

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?

[neicy81]

Originally posted by Dionysus


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.

[Dionysus]

It's still confusing and frustrating to read.

[lovelyivy84]

Originally posted by neicy81


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

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).

[neicy81]

Originally posted by lovelyivy84


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.

[RUgreek]

Originally posted by neicy81


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

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

[Rudey]

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!

Originally posted by neicy81
I agree with Honeykiss. He did renege on his original beliefs but to go back

If racism is discriminating and discrimination is

discrimination

n 1: unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice


then please tell me how he used to treat whites unfair.

[neicy81]

Originally posted by Rudey
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!


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.

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.

You statement about Al Sharpton I did in fact read. I just didn't respond.[/B]



[/B]