Getting tired of neo-Marxist BS

originally posted by: olaru12

Getting tired of neo-Marxist BS

I'm not sure I get the neo-Marxist connection.

Me neither.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

What does this have to do with Marxism?

It's the propaganda methods.

Classic

Deflections.Tangents.denials.abound

originally posted by: CJCrawley
a reply to: enlightenedservant

I don't see why you would have a problem with someone saying the Severan Dynasty were "black".

Because there's no positive suggestion that they were.

They could just as well have been white, as you have illustrated.

So why do some people say they were black...without knowing?

That's what I have a problem with - people/institutions declaring that certain historical figures were black without really knowing, and clearly to promote a political viewpoint.

I guess it depends on what's "black"? And what's the difference between them being "brown" or "black"? You even said in your OP that you don't mind if he was black. So there shouldn't be a problem there. Most people in Africa & with African descent are actually various shades of brown. And the San ethnic group that I showed above are a relatively light shade of brown, even though you literally can't get more African than them lol That's why I asked if it was because of the connotation.

I know that different countries used different terminology & classifications for "black/negro". So maybe that's the issue here. Historically in America, it was up to the states to decide. So depending on the state, a person was "black" if they had 1 grandparent of African descent (1/4 African); if they were 1/16 African descent; or the infamous "1 drop rule" which stated you were "black" if you had even a single drop of African descent. And obviously, anyone who fit the criteria for being "black" was legally a 2nd class citizen. But in South America & Central America, it was different. Multiracial people were classified as a higher class that full blooded Africans, who were the only ones labeled "black" (and received the lowest social classification).

So maybe the issue we're having is that we're using a different definition of "black". In America, I'm "black" & I love it. In Central America or South America, I would legally pass as multiracial instead of black, though I'd still choose black. And in South Africa, I'd be "multiracial/colored" instead of black, because I'm not full blooded.

Overtime the matrix never really was believed bybthe entire populace as there were many different theories to that conveys connection but still cannot be explained by scientists/alchemists/religious leaders and even the ones claiming "God-Like" states.

Some people just find satisfaction in learning something new each day, but that does credit/discredit belief automatically.

What I dont understand is why some people seemed to have aggression on belief of others? Are they trying to shift perceptions/beliefs of others? I think those are the ones who think highly of themselves, arent they? Pathetic right? They can move on with each of their own belief as long as there is respect To each and anyone with attributing beliefs of another to whatever they fine just to complete their sentence.

Different Religions have long been standing on Earth, but everyone lived without disrespecting each other's values. What difference will this try to make?

a reply to: enlightenedservant

To a British audience, a black person is one who is of Sub-Saharan African origin.

The BBC 'expert' could have said that Severus was "African", or "non-white", or "brown" to avoid ambiguity, but she didn't. It is simply not true that he was a black man.

It was/is disinformation whose purpose is to promote a revisionist, Afrocentric reinterpretation of ancient history.

Shameful that a world-recognised institution like the BBC should be involved in this nonsense.

PS Thank you for your thoughtful and interesting comment.

Often practiced by Rush Limbaugh.

a reply to: xuenchen

originally posted by: starswift
Often practiced by Rush Limbaugh.

a reply to: xuenchen

who's he?

a reply to: CJCrawley

Cultural Marxism? It's certainly alive and well, in fact it seems to be the most influential ideology in the Western world.

originally posted by: CJCrawley
a reply to: enlightenedservant

To a British audience, a black person is one who is of Sub-Saharan African origin.

The BBC 'expert' could have said that Severus was "African", or "non-white", or "brown" to avoid ambiguity, but she didn't. It is simply not true that he was a black man.

It was/is disinformation whose purpose is to promote a revisionist, Afrocentric reinterpretation of ancient history.

Shameful that a world-recognised institution like the BBC should be involved in this nonsense.

PS Thank you for your thoughtful and interesting comment.

That's really interesting to me as well. Is that why people have such a hard time hearing that the ancient Egyptians were "black"? (they called their land Kemet, meaning "black land") Their hieroglyphics depict various shades of brown & black for the workers, merchants, "engineers" , and many pharaohs. Queen Tiye is probably the most obvious example (as well as that entire dynasty).

I say that because I don't see a difference in dark brown & black, since us medium brown people get much darker if we stay in sunlight for days on end. It's kind of like "tanning" but even more extreme lol. Some of my first-cousins are much darker than me because of the climate they live in, even though they technically have more Native American blood than I do. But when I visit them, I get a lot darker too if I stay in the sun the whole time.

I guess another reason is because here in America, all "black" and "brown" people were clumped together as "black". We were stripped of our heritage, customs, languages, religions, etc. So there would literally be no difference between a Zulu, Nubian, or Yaruba, even though those ethnic groups don't even live in the same regions. My family line was particularly headstrong though (easy to guess, huh?) and kept a long history of our origins. Because of that, I know that some of my lineage is from modern day Benin, some from Western Nigeria, some Muscogee Tribe, some Cherokee Tribe, and a white guy who raped & enslaved my Creek Indian fore-mother (he disowned them so I don't know his heritage yet).

Sorry for the long message. But I guess the point I'm making is that "black" and "brown" people all over the world will have different definitions of the word. So if the reporter you were talking about says the Severans would be considered "black", maybe they were, dependinng on the area the reporter was from. As an interesting note, many brown skinned people from India & Arabian lands are shocked when they come to America & are sometimes considered black lol. Because in their countries, they're nothing close to being "black", even if their skin is darker than mine. And that's also why a lot of American "white" people say they have Native American blood. Because many have multiracial people in the bloodline, but the "one drop rule" would have made them be considered as "black".