When Africans Meet African-Americans (country, life, culture, living)

[TheArchitect]

Originally Posted by NyWriterdude

Now that I think of it, Rosa Parks was the perfect middle class woman to present to white people. Another woman, an unwed pregnant teenager had refused to move to the back of the bus. But the NAACP wouldn't support her. The supported Rosa Parks as she was more "acceptable" to white people. That is a failure of the Civil Rights Movement right there. Reject helping the poor unwed pregnant Black teenager in favor of the married middle class woman who is more acceptable to white people.

The movement ultimately did not serve the majority of Black people, who are disproportionately POOR and who disproportionately get incarcerated.

They did not reject helping that poor woman, the rules they fought to have changed were for everyone not just the individual Rosa Parks.

And of course Parks was the perfect woman to choose as the face of the civil rights struggle. They were wise to choose someone like her instead of some backwards woman lacking the traits to have been a dependable icon. They would have done that unwed lower class mother and others like her a disservice by choosing her as the face of the movement.





And for you earlier statement about Oregon drugs laws. They did not actually decriminalize the hard drugs. They reduced the crime for possesion of small, personal consumption levels from felony to minor misdemenor. Which is good legislation of the sort that should be advocated. However this isnt a stepping stone to true full legalization as some hope and others fear.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.0e20025nn8fd

[NyWriterdude]

Originally Posted by TheArchitect

They did not reject helping that poor woman, the rules they fought to have changed were for everyone not just the individual Rosa Parks.

And of course Parks was the perfect woman to choose as the face of the civil rights struggle. They were wise to choose someone like her instead of some backwards woman lacking the traits to have been a dependable icon. They would have done that unwed lower class mother and others like her a disservice by choosing her as the face of the movement.





And for you earlier statement about Oregon drugs laws. They did not actually decriminalize the hard drugs. They reduced the crime for possesion of small, personal consumption levels from felony to minor misdemenor. Which is good legislation of the sort that should be advocated. However this isnt a stepping stone to true full legalization as some hope and others fear.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.0e20025nn8fd

Sure it is a stepping stone, as later bills will further reduce penalties. Originally marijuana legislation sought to decriminalized small amounts. That expanded to medical marijuana, and it expanded to legal recreational marijuana.

And a movement that basically sought the approval of white conservatives and that judged Black people but white conservative standards is a failed movement. It's horrible they chose Rosa Parks over the other woman, and the civil rights movement is a LEGACY that is rightfully rejected by younger people.

[caribny]

Originally Posted by NyWriterdude

Obama projected lots of respect. Yet his becoming President was also a curse, in that it was a rallying point for white racists and Trump rode that wave into power and look at where we are now.

me.

Your problem is that you aren't comfortable with yourself as a black man and need to be validated by whites, so your focus on the fact that whites don't love you. You notice the micro aggressions (such a millennial word). So what if some one is ignorant. Their loss! You aren't going to be attacked in NYC, or other major cities. f you go to Billy Bobland seeking white love then that is your problem


So what if whites don't love you. Once they cannot prevent you from achieving your goals who cares. And sufficient numbers of blacks have achieved some degree of upward mobility (30% of black households now earn higher than the median white household income) to suggest that all isn't lost.


And face it. An educated black has more opportunities in the USA than in any other society dominated by non blacks with the possible exception of Canada. And I emphasize POSSIBLE. Better than in Europe and DEFINITELY better than Latin America, though I will admit that if love from whites is your goal, even at the cost of being poor, then by all means blacks are better off there. But it takes some one of real low self esteem to accept that as a tradeoff.


The Democratic party got stomped because it is controlled by a combination of arrogant rich liberal celebrities (Hillary's group) and ultra left wing activist nuts (Bernie maniacs). Neither reflecting the mindset of most Americans, black or white.


The drop in turn out by the black vote in the Midwest was LARGER than the margin of Trump victories in those states. Had blacks turned up to vote in the same numbers as they did for Obama then Trump would have lost.


Funny that Obama won TWICE in the Midwest and won a moderately higher % of the white votes than any white candidate since Jimmy Carter, even doing better than Bill Clinton. Please recall that had Perot not split the white vote Bill Clinton would NOT have been president.


There is a concept called the Obama-Trump voter and many exist in the Midwest. So if these people are card carrying racists then why did they vote for Obama in 2012. Their vote is a reflection of the sickness which ails BOTH the GOP and the Democratic parties.


The nut cases screaming "white power" voted for every GOP candidate since Nixon so why the liberal rage that they did it once again?

[caribny]

Originally Posted by NyWriterdude

I'm not an old illiterate poor Black person from the South, I can live where I want to live domestically AND abroad..

Well you don't like blacks period, but then that is your choice. You don't like AAs, as face it that culture is Southern rooted even if altered somewhat in the North. You don't go for Africans and you do your best to scream that nothing about you and those who you respect is African. We already know that you don't like West Indians.


But do your self a favor. You have the ability to have obtained the education that you boast of, the ability to live where you wish, and the ability to surround yourself with nonblacks, as blacks disgust you.


You would NOT have been able to do this but for the struggle of many in the civil rights movement.


There were few Ivy League blacks in the 1940s, and you would have been stuck in Harlem or Bed Stuy surrounded by those "odious" negroes.


I can well imagine that were you around in the 1940s you would have been one of the many black Americans flocking to France seeking white approval. Even though they would have seen you as some "noble savage", not really respecting your intellect.

[caribny]

Originally Posted by NyWriterdude

The civil rights movement was in the 60s and 70s and it is over, but you seem to have difficulty with that realization.

.

Who really cares what you enjoy. The civil rights is over and yet you endlessly wail over it. Is any one here saying that it still exists. In fact the POST civil rights era came about from the 70s.


Now ask yourself what movement currently exists to solve the myriads of problems which ails black populations? Black Lives Matter? Please give me a break. They don't even have concrete ideas as to how to resolve issues faced by young black (and dark skinned Hispanic) men which causes the problem to exist in the first place.


Certainly South Asians don't seem to have this issue to this degree, except for Indo Caribbean young men who are similarly places as are many black and Latino young men.

[caribny]

Originally Posted by NyWriterdude

.

I have nothing to do with people like YOU (coons/house ******s who will not speak about against socioeconomic injustice).

This from a man who deliberately decides to go to regions in Latin America where he can avoid blacks. And who gets very angry should anyone speak of racism against blacks in Latin America, or suggest that there are aspects of African culture which exist within certain societies in Latin America such as the DR.


Have you ever gone to Salvador da Bahia?

[caribny]

Originally Posted by TheArchitect

Your perspective is driven by inaccuracies and you are obviously ill informed of the facts regarding the current proportions of the black population comprised of professionals and poor. I find it surprising that a New Yorker with a masters degree is unaware of the strong and growing professional black presense in this country. Far, FAR more than what could be described as a "token" amount. And the poor inner city blacks dont comprise the large majority that you seem to think they do.

not.

This is a man who makes it his business NOT to mix with blacks, so no wonder his perspectives of blacks is that we are monolithic losers. If he sees us he runs away as fast as he can, but then will call us the House "N" word. Interesting. What a confused person!


I can only wonder how he expects poor black boys to make the effort to engage in activities that will improve their lot if they are told that blacks are failures and so no point trying.


When poor blacks know that at least 30% of blacks have succeeded to some degree then they will know that effort on their part is worth their white. But if told that all blacks are poor then why bother?

[caribny]

Originally Posted by NyWriterdude

Now that I think of it, Rosa Parks was the perfect middle class woman to present to white people. .

Yes because in order to make a point the NAACP had to find some one who didn't fit into a stereotype. In fact other black women did in fact do what Rosa Parks did, but they could have been more easily discredited.


This is simple tactics and EVERY group that plans to achieve its goals does this.

Do those who want better treatment of black men by the police highlight those examples of black criminals waving a gun and then got shot when they were trying to escape?


No they cite the black FAMILY MEN, those who got shot while their kid was in a back seat and they were obeying the police, and yet got shot.

[caribny]

Originally Posted by NyWriterdude

No I'm not.

I said I didn't consider myself American and I love going overseas.

But that doesn't mean I'm not heavily involved in various forms of activism, such as the fight against white nationalism, ending mass incarceration, or ending the war on drugs.

You and CaribNY won't even go there.

And how successful has been your struggle to date? Did it improve the socio economic condition of blacks? Do you even have specific policies to do so? How different do you think that you are from the Civil Rights leaders?


Guy I spend my time helping black owned businesses succeed. Yes so hopefully the little black boy who is too "scary" to be hired by whites will find a job. You see I prefer to spend my time doing things that provide IMMEDIATE benefit and don't rely on Mr. White Man.


You see I don't see dark skinned Asian Indians getting shot by the police. I see blacks (of all ethnicities), dark skinned Hispanics and Indo Caribbean men getting harassed. I happen to know why there is a difference in treatment and I try to address it.


But you can do as the Civil Rights movement did. Demonstrate in the streets and hope that Mr. White Man feels sorry for you.

[Ralph_Kirk]

Originally Posted by NyWriterdude

And a movement that basically sought the approval of white conservatives and that judged Black people but white conservative standards is a failed movement.

So here is what we (that is, black Americans) are not talking about...and the reason we are not talking about it is because we're afraid of what the enemies of black skin will make of it:

The black people who had been engaged in the Civil Rights Movement since the Post-Bellum Reconstruction were not significantly culturally different from the white people around them.

Those black people held essentially the same moral standards as the white people, believed in the same religious tenets as those white people, held the same concepts of honor, love, justice, and family as those white people. We have to be sure we don't overemphasize the exigencies that applied racism forced upon them. The only real difference was skin color.

The choice of an educated, church-staff, married NAACP member over a pregnant high school drop-out was not "seeking the approval of white conservatives," it was by far their own choice of a person the black community could most strongly rally behind.

You might find it hard to believe: Back then, being a pregnant high school dropout was not a matter of celebration for either black or white people.

It's horrible they chose Rosa Parks over the other woman, and the civil rights movement is a LEGACY that is rightfully rejected by younger people.

I have begun to crystallize an understanding of a phenomenon which I first had a glimmer 'way back in the early 60s. That black culture I spoke about up above--essentially a southern, largely rural culture--was something developed uniquely as a response to the unique character of Southern American racism. It was uniquely a result of a "separate but (almost) equal" concept that created parallel societies in the South that didn't really exist in other parts of the country.

And black Southern culture was parallel in nearly every way we could make it parallel, albeit more economically depressed.

When young blacks migrated northward for job opportunities, there was something vital they did not do: They did not take their grandmothers with them. The grandmothers largely stayed back in the South. But the problem that caused is that grandmothers are the keepers of culture. So the heart of that Southern culture did not migrate north. It was always "back home."

Until, eventually, "back home" was forgotten. Or rather, both forgotten and erased--that erasure came in the 70s when we gave up control of our image and turned it over to Hollywood.

But the Civil Rights Era was born from black Southern culture. Martin Luther King, Thurgood Marshall, Rosa Parks, Charles Drew, Katherine Johnson, John L Lewis--those were all educated, "well-bred," genteel members of their societies, and were mirrors of white Southern counterparts who saw their suffering as due to nothing but the color of their skin.

That particular culture is IMO nearly extinct. Without the unique de juris condition of "separate but (nearly) equal" parallel societies, that black southern culture has nothing to continue its support--and that is the paradoxical result of the success of the Civil Rights Era. It will be extinct when black Boomers are dead. Some black X-Genners will remember it, but the black Millennial generation will not carry it forward.

I would like to have seen what Malcolm X could have done in the north, because I do believe the north required a radically different solution because it was a radically different problem. There were not parallel cultures in the north, and the essential connection "back home" had been severed for most northern and western urban areas (and arguably had never existed in the Northeast).

Malcolm X was probably correct in that northern blacks needed to develop a radically different and radically positive culture for their place. Northern blacks needed a "boot camp" culture that the Black Muslims proposed (although probably not the Black Muslim religion itself). It's a tragedy that in-fighting within the Black Muslims caused Malcolm's death (and, yes, I'm convinced Farrakhan was behind it) and the different vision Malcolm had.

But that didn't happen, and what has happened is that an urban black way of existence("Chiraqs" and "Blackistans")--I hesitate to call it "culture"--has developed that feeds upon itself. It cripples its fathers, injures its mothers, and devours its children. It's a dead end.

Islam, no. American Christianity is mostly too prostituted to the worst of white American culture (which happened to the black Church when it no longer had racism as a primary foe and could become a "prosperity" religion).

Maybe Buddhism or Baha'i would work.