Unspoken black/white segregation: Choice or societal structure?

[Carver]

The point you made was to be "historically accurate". My post was completly historically accurate; Caligastia's post was not.

Trying to compare African and European nations to see who is more "primative" was outside of the scope of the argument. The issue raised was weather or not Africans had national identities before being forced into chattel slavery. My post, stating that they did, is historically accurate, dumbass.

[orange]

Originally posted by Carver
The point you made was to be "historically accurate". My post was completely historically accurate; Caligastia's post was not.

Trying to compare African and European nations to see who is more "primative" was outside of the scope of the argument. The issue raised was weather or not Africans had national identities before being forced into chattel slavery. My post, stating that they did, is historically accurate, dumbass.

Yes, let's. To say Africa had no nations is completely and absolutely historically inaccurate.

Read some history before trying to be "historically accurate".

The immediate above was directed at me. However, I made no such statement that Africa was not composed of nation states.

Therefore you were saying that what I supposedly said was inaccurate, when I didn't even make the statement.

The fact is, there was and still is today a very large difference between the nations of the Western World and the nations of Africa. During the peak of slavery importing, African nations and tribes did infact sell each other as slaves to the Europeans, who then brought them to America. That alone is proof that 'government' was a much more primitive reality in Africa.

[Carver]

Originally posted by orange
The fact is, there was and still is today a very large difference between the nations of the Western World and the nations of Africa. During the peak of slavery importing, African nations and tribes did infact sell each other as slaves to the Europeans, who then brought them to America. That alone is proof that 'government' was a much more primitive reality in Africa.

If African nations engaged in the slave trade, and European nations engaged in the slave trade, how does that prove that one is more primative than the other? Anyway, I'm not trying to say African nations were as developed as European ones. But Caligastia's remark that they essentially had no national identity is the kind of dehumanizing attitude that allows for atrocities such as slavery.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by moominparatrooper
So I take it you reject and deplore the teachings of black leaders such a MX and LF?

So I take it you reject and deplore the teachings of white leaders, such as Adolph Hitler and Pik Botha. Do you see how assinine such a question is? Why are Black people always expected to explain or prove themselves?

By the way, have you read anything Malcolm X ever wrote or said?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Carver
William Rhenquist . . . owned two properties with racially restrictive covenants in their titles.

While in no way wishing to defend this man, restrictive covenents, once included in a property deed, cannot be removed. Much of the older deeds in the US have restrictive covenents. If you live in a major city, you can't get around them. They just have no force of law.

One thing you misses is that Rhenquist was in charge of knocking Black voters off the rolls before he became a judge. He would look for Black voters and challenge their individual registrations, and if it wasn't defneded, the person would lose their right to vote in the upcoming election. It is a strategy still used quite effectively today to ensure Republican victories in elections (i.e., Florida).

[moomin]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
So I take it you reject and deplore the teachings of white leaders, such as Adolph Hitler and Pik Botha.

You missed the question mark, but I take'll take that as a question anyway. Hope you don't mind. As for the answer, it's an resounding yes - of course I do. I find people who harbour racist options, judging other by their external pigmantation, hair crinkiness or nose profile to be morons. I see no difference between the intellectual and moral rants of people like Hitler, Botha, Malcolm X or Louis Farrakhan, except insofar as to anknowledge that their particular rasist delusions expressed themselves to different degrees. I don't know if these visible differences are signs of intrinsic moral differences or simply manifestations of different circumstances and abilities.

But that's neither here nor there. The point - which frankly I believe you understood perfectly, although you did your best to circumvent it - is that while except for a few deluded nutcases in the Klan or among the working-class Eurotrash neo-nazi, any white person is going to agree with you that Hitler and his ilk were of the bat. I somehow never hear the vocal proponents of state racism to favour minorities express similar distaste over, say, MX. There's always a tendency to spew mealy-mouthed garbage 'bout how we must understand black racism because it's somehow a cultural expression, driven by unfortunate experiences. I don't buy into that. Hence my question.

[MrFun]

Malcolm X moderated his views to a more mainstream later on, which is why he was killed by an extremist.

[chequita guevara]

Malcolm X never advocated the murder or oppression of whites. For a time he advocated voluntary seperation from white society and he also argued that Blacks should take their rights by what ever means necessary (as any oprressed people have the right to do). After going on the Hadj, he moderated his views and saw that a Black and white coalition was what was needed, in order to free all people. You should learn something about Malcolm X before you compare him to Adolph Hitler.

My point in asking the question is it is assumed that whites do not support people like Adolph Hitler, yet Blacks are constantly asked about Louis Farrakhan. Only a tiny minority of Black people listen to Farrakhan. Yet whites always want to bring him up.

[moomin]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
My point in asking the question is it is assumed that whites do not support people like Adolph Hitler,

And why should this not be assumed? Do you have any data indicating that assuming the opposite would be sane?

yet Blacks are constantly asked about Louis Farrakhan. Only a tiny minority of Black people listen to Farrakhan. Yet whites always want to bring him up.

As I've already said, what I hear is a lot of explanations and justifications when we bring up black racists. Somehow, outright condemnation of rasist nutcases seems to be difficult for blacks, at least when the racist is on the right side of the fence. Your own attempt to white-wash (if you'll pardon...) MX is a perfect exemple. The man was a racist. Treat him as such.

Until blacks get a lot more bossy about dealing with the trash in their own ranks, I'm afraid they'll have to continue to answer questions about LF.

[MrFun]

Don't you get it????

Malcolm X did away with his racist beliefs as he matured, later on. THEN he was killed by an extremist.

[moomin]

Originally posted by MrFun
Malcolm X did away with his racist beliefs as he matured, later on.

I'm not overly impressed with the way he did away with his rasist beliefs. And anyhow, the fact that he once harboured them and wasn't shy expressing them should brand him persona non grata as far as inspiration for others go, even if we cut the man some slack and forgive him personally.

THEN he was killed by an extremist.

Always an occupational risk when you build your power platform by appealing to the basest possible element.

[MrFun]

moom, read a good book about Malcolm X.

[moomin]

Really, why should I? What kind of relevation can I expect to justify that kind of effort to learn more about a person I hold in contempt?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Carver

Trying to compare African and European nations to see who is more "primative" was outside of the scope of the argument. The issue raised was weather or not Africans had national identities before being forced into chattel slavery. My post, stating that they did, is historically accurate, dumbass.

You are exceedingly sweeping in your inclusion of every future slave in a national group at the least. From what I have read most of the slaves were collected by the more advanced societies (some of which you have mentioned) who had contact with Europeans and Arabs (and often firearms) from often poor and ignorant small groups living on marginal or wild lands in the interior. A European analogue might be Norse raiders taking slaves from Slavic or Celtic peoples who lived in Russia or Ireland in circumstances which were extremely primitive even by the standards of the time. While these people would be demonstrably Celts or Slavs linguistically, it is another thing entirely to ascribe to them a particular nationality, especially when their own terms do not stretch beyond a political system based upon kinship, ie tribalism.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by moominparatrooper
Really, why should I? What kind of relevation can I expect to justify that kind of effort to learn more about a person I hold in contempt?

For one thing, you would learn that as one example that proved Malcolm X's moderation of his ideology, he wanted to participate as a speaker at the March on Washington protest, with Martin Luther King Jr. This protest included BOTH whites, and blacks.

X was hoping for an invitation, but never received one from Martin Luther King Jr., for his own reasons that I am not certain about.