It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Successful Black Prejudice

page: 12
2
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
You'll never get an answer to your questions, FF.


*sigh* Here's another one -


Originally posted by ceci2006
Bill Cosby, however, is more swarmy because of his questionable behavior with women. I believe that when the stories concerning his treatment of ladies came out, I began to lose a great deal of respect for him.


If Bill Cosby is 'swarmy' based on his alleged 'questionable behavior with women' then why is Martin Luther King not also 'swarmy'? Afterall .. he was an intense womanizer. There are reports that even the night before he was assassinated he spent the evening in a hotel room with four (white - not that it matters) hookers .. and he beat up one of them during their sexual antics.

So why is Bill Cosby 'swarmy' based on his relationship with women, but Martin Luther King isn't?

Sounds like just more basic partisanship.

Edited ONCE to fix quote

[edit on 2/3/2007 by FlyersFan]




posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

[i[Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin

You truly remind me of Damon Wayans Oswald Bates character from the old T.V. show "In Living Color". You think you actually sound intelligent, unfortunately, you just end up looking absurd...but I digest!

I'm sure you meant "but I digress". But it was very funny any way you look at it.



If I may contain my liquids here for one moment, I would like to continue the redundance of my quote unquote intestinal track.

Sorry, but no...I didn't. It's actually an old T.V. skit, please see link to get what I am hinting at.
www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...


[edit on 3-2-2007 by phoenixhasrisin]



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin
www.youtube.com...


OMG I had forgotten about those!


You haven't posted much so I want to encourage you a bit -

You have voted phoenixhasrisin for the Way Above Top Secret award.
You have one more vote left for this month.



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

So why is Bill Cosby 'swarmy' based on his relationship with women, but Martin Luther King isn't?


Not to answer for someone else, but from what I have noticed the rev Martin Luther King is sacrosanct to the African American culture. You don't believe me? Try something I recently did. If you are white do not, I repeat do not try this under any circumstance. I am half black and what I recently suggested, literally almost got me shot.

Go to your nearest African American friends house and instigate some sort of political conversation, being black history month it should be easy as there is a feeling of "fight the power" in the air this time of year.

Anyways, when the conversation rolls around to King, which it will, I assure you, try saying these four little words: F*@% Martin Luther King, and see what happens.

Hell, if you are not a danger seeker like myself, then perhaps you can try the method I used on my family. Casually ask any African American you know if they have heard anything about MLK and a plagiarized doctoral thesis...watch what happens.



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin
MLK and a plagiarized doctoral thesis...


Yep. Of course his LEGAL name is Michael King, not Martin Luther. At least that's what I have read. And there are the women, the plagairized documents ...

www.martinlutherking.org...

So why isn't he 'swarmy'?
Partisanship?



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic

I don't think we can truthfully say that only Conservative black people are painted with the Oreo/Uncle Tom/Aunt Jemima crap... Oprah being the obvious example to illustrate this.



No, of course not. Just because the terms used are inherently racists though does not mean that the meanings are intended to equate "whiteness" as being some sort of undesirable condition. It is more a comment on someone trying to be something that they are not.

As has been alluded to in this thread the meaning of these terms go back a long time and are rooted in preferential treatment for blacks who both looked, and acted "white". If I can recall someone mentioned the paper bag test, which is well known of in the African American community. The roots of this go even further back, and I am talking long before blacks were in politics.

The sort of animosity described in the OP has it's roots in the age old divide between the field nigga, and the house nigga. The house nigga/high yellow ( the yellow often being related to bossman) who was right there with bossman at all times, ate his food, slept in his house, thought of himself as bossman. All the while the field nigga was always, well... out in the field. 200 some odd years later black conservatives are seen as nothing more than the modern incarnation of the house nigga.

Ther go our slaves boss, wat we gon'na do?


[edit on 3-2-2007 by phoenixhasrisin]



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin

Originally posted by jsobecky

[i[Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin

You truly remind me of Damon Wayans Oswald Bates character from the old T.V. show "In Living Color". You think you actually sound intelligent, unfortunately, you just end up looking absurd...but I digest!

I'm sure you meant "but I digress". But it was very funny any way you look at it.



If I may contain my liquids here for one moment, I would like to continue the redundance of my quote unquote intestinal track.

Sorry, but no...I didn't. It's actually an old T.V. skit, please see link to get what I am hinting at.
www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...


[edit on 3-2-2007 by phoenixhasrisin]

Ohmigod, I just watched the vid and nearly pissed myself laughing.

Thank you too much.



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin
Just because the terms used are inherently racists though does not mean that the meanings are intended to equate "whiteness" as being some sort of undesirable condition. It is more a comment on someone trying to be something that they are not.


Hmmm... maybe. I'm not sure I buy the argument that those terms are not meant to indicate something bad about being white. But I don't know enough about the nuances of the usage of the terms to really know... I'll take your word for it.




The sort of animosity described in the OP has it's roots in the age old divide between the field nigga, and the house nigga.


Excellent point!
Thanks... This division created by the slaveholding class - the power elite - the wealthy corrupt if you will, was a classic 'divide and conquer' tactic. And that tactic, sadly, has a long history of working. And it carries on today... what might be the metaphoric position in the hierarchy of power of such people as Rice, Gonzales, Powel, etc?

I guess that's what you meant:



200 some odd years later black conservatives are seen as nothing more than the modern incarnation of the house nigga.



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic
Excellent point!
Thanks...


I absolutely agree! Great point, phoenix.

AND... this divide and conquer tactic was (perhaps) employed historically because of the constant 'fear' that the slave class would "rise up" and take over.

And even though we as a nation don't hold slaves today, the "wealthy corrupt" are very afraid that the lower and middle class (that's you and me, folks) are going to rise up and take over. That's why they have to make their hold stronger and stronger. To insure that the power stays in their hands and we don't freakin' revolt.

Just my opinion.



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 01:04 PM
link   
I absolutely love the direction this thread has taken!

FF, why would you think that I wouldn't respond to you?; You, sweetie, have been perfectly reasonable; I have no reason to ignore you.


(I was playing The Sims 2, if you must know...
)



That kinda just sounds like old fashioned political partisanship to me.

Yes, you may be right.** I was already slightly biased against him, just for being associated with someone as stupid/evil (not sure which) Bush is.

[I want everyone to note: I just conceded a point to FF... and I'm still breathing. Be honest with yourself, and give in a little-- it won't kill you.]



considering the information posted by Semper on Rosa Parks

I haven't really caught up yet, and, really, I'm just checking in. I don't plan on being here a lot today. I'll try to read his link tomorrow.



Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin
from what I have noticed the rev Martin Luther King is sacrosanct to the African American culture.

As an individual black American, let me say... um, no. I was trained as a historian. I guess I never got a chance to wear those rose-colored glasses. I tend to look at people as real people, the good and the bad.



The sort of animosity described in the OP has it's roots in the age old divide between the field nigga, and the house nigga... 200 some odd years later black conservatives are seen as nothing more than the modern incarnation of the house nigga.

That's true. IMO, the terms are outdated, but, sadly enough, the imagery still fits.



Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic
I'm not sure I buy the argument that those terms are not meant to indicate something bad about being white.

I did a post about this a while back. It seemed to clarify the issue for some people.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I am curious as to the general opinion of the black contributers on this thread about the individuals on these sites. Are some of these people seen as sell outs and others not?

Like I told FF, I haven't been around much in the last day (which shows you how much time I normally spend here
). I'll catch up late tonight/ tomorrow.

And, BH and OMS, those two posts above mine are so good... that I don't have anything to add.


** Oh, and I may not have been clear about in my last post. When I said this: "The 'Uncle Tom' impression had already been made by then. " about Colin Powell, I said exactly what I meant: the 'Uncle Tom' impression. I don't actually use that term in everyday conversation. I'm more likely to say, 'He was kissing Bush's a*', which leans towards FF's initial guess that my feelings about him (while he was in the Bush admin) were partisan, not race-related.

edit to add, BH, could you please start a thread in 'Board Business' about your term (yes, it's yours!), 'wealthy corrupt'? I think that would go a long way toward coming up with some type of 'unified conspiracy theory' (remember Advisor's thread?), since the 'wealthy corrupt' are (maybe?) behind it everything.

What do you think?

[edit on 3-2-2007 by HarlemHottie]



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 01:34 PM
link   
I think you have a plan, HH. Thank you for stating that. I think the posts of OMS and yourself provided a much better explaination than what was attempted earlier in this page.

----------------------------------------------------

Reading some of the other posts, started me putting this entire thing into perspective:

It's not about animosity between Blacks; it's about reconfirming that old "superiority" that belongs with institutional racism and privilege. Not to mention, taking digs at the behaviors of Black folk at the same time while lampooning their leaders, good or bad.

People tend to forget that for the system of institutional racism and privilege to continue, there have always been "middle men". The "middle men" (i.e. the person of color who assimilates), tend to release the "dirty laundry" of the culture of color, make fun of them and even work to assuage the guilt of the dominant culture. His behavior as a "go-between" helps reinforce the system in which he is vastly rewarded with pats on the back and false promises of comraderie.

There's a reason why such "middle men" are seen with scorn, you know. They work with the system against their own best interests. And as a result, they too aid in not only restricting the access of their people, but of themselves as well.

But even sometimes, the "middle men" are too blind to know that.



[edit on 3-2-2007 by ceci2006]



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
As an individual black American, let me say... um, no. I was trained as a historian. I guess I never got a chance to wear those rose-colored glasses. I tend to look at people as real people, the good and the bad.


That's all fine and good, really, I applaud you on your individuality. I do think that you are the exception, and I do not put much faith in the power of individuality, if you take a look around I am sure you understand why that is. Let me get this straight though; are you really trying to tell me that MLK has not taken on a saint like role in the black community?




That's true. IMO, the terms are outdated, but, sadly enough, the imagery still fits.


Of courses the terms are outdated, it's just that I could honestly think of no other way to express the historical roots of this problem. If I were to use those terms with any black person over the age of say 60, they would be more than familiar with both the terms, and what I meant by using them.

I also think it is all fine and dandy that we expose the "wealthy corrupt" or whatever term you want to designate, however, I feel it is important to never forget that racism is not only a divide and conquer tactic.

There are plenty of the "wealthy corrupt" who do honestly believe that they are superior to people of colour. So, whilst institutionalized racism might be a divide et impera tactic used to distract the sheople, the actions of the ruling elite have been shown time and time again that they actually do feel superior, and that they actually are doing something about ridding the planet of what they consider vermin.

[edit on 3-2-2007 by phoenixhasrisin]



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
I did a post about this a while back. It seemed to clarify the issue for some people.


Thanks, HH... I saw that at the time, and have now read it again, and it makes sense. I guess like most or all human behavior, this is difficult to generalize about and still maintain accuracy...



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin
There are plenty of the "wealthy corrupt" who do honestly believe that they are superior to people of colour. ... and that they actually are doing something about ridding the planet of what they consider vermin.


I totally agree. And I think Katrina is a prime example of just that. And I would like to add that it's not just people of color that they'd like to see gone. I believe that the wealthy corrupt look down their noses at people of color AND the very poor. I honestly think they see the poor as a strain on society and think that "we'd be better off with them gone, too."

And of course, the people of color who can be of some service to the wealthy corrupt in one way or another aren't to be gotten rid of. Not yet, anyway. They'll be allowed to stay around because of the service they provide.

HH -- I'll think about starting a "wealthy corrupt" thread, but if anyone else wants to do it, have at it. I have no investment in the phrase as that's how I've always thought of them. I think it should be in Social Issues, though.

[edit on 3-2-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 06:24 PM
link   
HH,


[I want everyone to note: I just conceded a point to FF... and I'm still breathing. Be honest with yourself, and give in a little-- it won't kill you.]


You are a TRUE Class Act!!! and a Pleasure to debate...

Semper



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 08:05 PM
link   
Yes, HH is gracious and brilliant in her manner of debating. Reading her work is perhaps one of the more instructive and wonderful things to come across this board.



posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
FF, why would you think that I wouldn't respond to you?


I didn't. I figured you'd come back at some point.
Oh the mystical forces that draw us together ...



(I was playing The Sims 2, if you must know...
)


Naaaaaaaah .. it was really BRAD keeping you busy, wasn't it?



General question not answered yet .. why is Bill Cosby 'swarmy' but MLK not? MLK's misdeeds are much better documented and were made in greater frequency than the alleged ones by Bill Cosby.

Have we acknowledged basic old fashioned partisanship is involved?



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 10:48 AM
link   
Phoenix, thanks for making a great point.


I know I said this earlier, but this thread is still misnamed. IMO, it's just another way to divide the black community.

This thread title makes it seem like the average black person doesn't like most successful black people. This is a damn lie, if you ask me. It's not the successful blacks who are dismissed as pawns; it's the PAWNS who are dismissed as pawns.

No one really responded to this last time (and if someone did, my fault for missing your response), but here goes again, in a different flavor. About 65% of the NFL football players are black. I don't think, from a monetary POV anyway, that anyone will say NFL players aren't successful. Why, then, do we not see such animosity from the black community towards them?

And look what a lot of these players do; they actually DO STUFF POSITIVE for the black community. From sports camps and school visits to actually creating schools (a Tampa Bay player, something Brooks, has created a school that will open this fall), they actually help the community.

Contrast this with pudding pop by the face Cosby. He gets the crap he says projected in the media because it's a good message to assauge the guilt you may have for how members of your species of a different shade were treated as animals for centuries.



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
It's not the successful blacks who are dismissed as pawns; it's the PAWNS who are dismissed as pawns.


And there we have it. Old fashioned partisanship. Thanks truthseeka.



About 65% of the NFL football players are black. Why, then, do we not see such animosity from the black community towards them?


What are their political leanings? Do they even have any?


**********************
Recollection by Kareem Abdul-Jabbar as a 9 year old enrolling in a new school: (From Abdul-Jabbar & Knobles, 1983, pg 16)

I got there and immediately found I could read better than anyone in the school ... When the nuns found this out they paid me a lot of attention, once even asking me, a fourth grader, to read to the seventh grade. When thekids found this out I became a target .. I got all A's and was hated for it; I spoke correctly and was called a punk. I had to learn a new language simply to be able to deal with the threats. I had good manners and was a good little boy and paid for it with my hide.

Succesful black American youth 'acting white' - see also B.B. Brown, 1993; and Ogbu, 1992)



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 06:51 PM
link   
WTF does their political stance have to do with anything?

They actually do constructive stuff to help the black community. Too bad if your beloved Cosbys and Jacksons don't exactly do the same, but say stuff that the majority likes to hear...



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join