Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, I am white, and before you imply (much less flat-out state) as such, I do not pretend to be an authority on African culture. But I know enough to state that treating everyone from Afro-Caribbeans to Senegalese as one in the same is not going to get you everywhere. This is not to attack Pan-Africanism specifically. I view most any "Pan-X" concept as inherently ill-fated, and that's a very common conclusion among black and white academics alike. I'll add that I'm of Jewish descent, so I'm descended from a pretty long line of universally marginalized people (we've certainly done relatively well in the past couple generations, but we're still awfully hated). And if you bring up any canards such as "The Jews were disproportionately involved in the slave trade" or, better yet, modern Jews are "imposters" and blacks are the true modern descendents of the 12 tribes of Israel, I'm just going to laugh at you.
I'll devote this half of my post to state you sound like an angry 19-year-old who is (very poorly) regurgitating whatever his African Studies professors are feeding him. That's not to speak ill of them (or the concept of African studies in general). Just you.
So you're white but you're telling a me, a black man, how I should go about empowering my people. It shows your arrogance and close mindedness when you do this, because you feel your methods, whatever they may be, can address the issues of the psyche better than a person who has been through this indoctrination and has uprooted it. Of course you wouldn't agree with any Pan-X movement because what benefit does it bring to you?
Then you go on your Jewish tirade something which I haven't even referred to but yet you felt the need to bring it up. You're already defensive on a subject that doesn't even pertain to the topic. So I'm going to laugh at you.
And the last bit in which you utilize the logical fallacy of "argumentem ad hominem" method and where you respond to the tone I'm using (not the substance), shows your unpreparedness for this discussion, in which the central point for this discussion is articulated in the thread title. What you should do is take a look at this chart:
and focus on the top three methods in this chart, that way this discussion can remain without silly remarks like you've made.
So you're white but you're telling a me, a black man, how I should go about empowering my people. It shows your arrogance and close mindedness when you do this, because you feel your methods, whatever they may be, can address the issues of the psyche better than a person who has been through this indoctrination and has uprooted it. Of course you wouldn't agree with any Pan-X movement because what benefit does it bring to you?
Given that your position is extremely controversial even within your own community, no, it's not "arrogant and close-minded" to point out that Pan-X movements have never succeeded because you ultimately have one hegemonic force dictating how one broad cultural group is "supposed" to think and act, conveniently glossing over the fact there are significant differences between the individual subcultures. And actually, a "Pan-Jewish" movement would be personally beneficial to me, but would never work for the reasons listed above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perception
Then you go on your Jewish tirade something which I haven't even referred to but yet you felt the need to bring it up. You're already defensive on a subject that doesn't even pertain to the topic. So I'm going to laugh at you.
You referred to my people as "so-called Jews" in another thread, so I already see the writing on the wall.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perception
And the last bit in which you utilize the logical fallacy of "argumentem ad hominem" method and where you respond to the tone I'm using (not the substance), shows your unpreparedness for this discussion, in which the central point for this discussion is articulated in the thread title. What you should do is take a look at this chart:
and focus on the top three methods in this chart, that way this discussion can remain without silly remarks like you've made.
Pointing out the simplistic, self-righteous air of your tone is an incidental point, but one which seems necessary, given that you too call me "arrogant" because I don't completely agree with you. I guess by that logic, most black Americans are arrogant and close-minded as well. If you can avoid those needlessly antagonistic words, so will I. I'm merely stating my opinion, not claiming to have the ultimate "right" answer by any means. I agree, I don't have the authority, as a white man, to speak about the black experience or what is "best," which is something I wouldn't dream of doing. But I'm perfectly within my right to make general observations. Since you think a pan-African movement could/would be successful, please tell me why. What qualities do you think sub-Saharan Africans, an extremely diverse group, share that can make such a movement overcome the weaknesses that as of yet have prevented other Pan-X movements from being successful.
While Psychology presets certain problems of experimental proof, it nevertheless endeavors to be a hard science, and has the greatest value where it most closely works in a true-science arena.
Presuming Psychology to be a "science", would you argue that black people ought to have their own physics, chemistry, mathematics, biology, etc. as well?
Given that your position is extremely controversial even within your own community, no, it's not "arrogant and close-minded" to point out that Pan-X movements have never succeeded because you ultimately have one hegemonic force dictating how one broad cultural group is "supposed" to think and act, conveniently glossing over the fact there are significant differences between the individual subcultures. And actually, a "Pan-Jewish" movement would be personally beneficial to me, but would never work for the reasons listed above.
You referred to my people as "so-called Jews" in another thread, so I already see the writing on the wall.
Pointing out the simplistic, self-righteous air of your tone is an incidental point, but one which seems necessary, given that you too call me "arrogant" because I don't completely agree with you. I guess by that logic, most black Americans are arrogant and close-minded as well. If you can avoid those needlessly antagonistic words, so will I. I'm merely stating my opinion, not claiming to have the ultimate "right" answer by any means. I agree, I don't have the authority, as a white man, to speak about the black experience or what is "best," which is something I wouldn't dream of doing. But I'm perfectly within my right to make general observations. Since you think a pan-African movement could/would be successful, please tell me why. What qualities do you think sub-Saharan Africans, an extremely diverse group, share that can make such a movement overcome the weaknesses that as of yet have prevented other Pan-X movements from being successful.
Only reason why my position would be controversial within my community is because the history and success of the Pan-African movement has been understated and hidden. Malcolm X's parents was Pan-Africanist, MLK would've been a much greater threat had he adopted some Pan-African ideologies and dropped his "white, liberal ideologies" and it when he began to speak on the economic situations of the poor he was murdered.
To be a Pan-African doesn't mean to dictate one overall solution to African people, it's to unite African people and set about solutions that will benefit all and not one, few, or many but all. It wasn't the nationalities that put us in this situation, neither was it our spirituality, it wasn't even our kingdoms, it was because we are African. The light-skinned/dark-skinned difference didn't do this it was because we are African. You couldn't tell me why you would feel a Pan-African approach would not be so great, and the Sub-Saharan Africa context you keep bringing up wouldn't validate your argument.
What reason would you need to know about Pan-African ideologies anyways?
My tone is not self-righteous, I don't feel I have all the answers nor do I insinuate that I do. My tone is more so uncompromising, unyielding and unapologetic when it comes to the opposition, whether they are black or white.
When it comes to the whole Jewish thing, well I didn't even know you was a Jew, it's not even pertinent to this discussion, so why would I bring it up.
While Psychology presets certain problems of experimental proof, it nevertheless endeavors to be a hard science, and has the greatest value where it most closely works in a true-science arena.
Presuming Psychology to be a "science", would you argue that black people ought to have their own physics, chemistry, mathematics, biology, etc. as well?
African people are not in their natural state, none around the world, we mastered mathematics, astronomy/astrology and chemistry, after all Egypt's true name is Kemet, we've invented and mastered almost every science in the world but we robbed of all of that during our holocaust.
Well African people already have their own branch of psychology, scientific journal, and association of psychologists
Only reason why my position would be controversial within my community is because the history and success of the Pan-African movement has been understated and hidden. Malcolm X's parents was Pan-Africanist, MLK would've been a much greater threat had he adopted some Pan-African ideologies and dropped his "white, liberal ideologies" and it when he began to speak on the economic situations of the poor he was murdered.
To be a Pan-African doesn't mean to dictate one overall solution to African people, it's to unite African people and set about solutions that will benefit all and not one, few, or many but all. It wasn't the nationalities that put us in this situation, neither was it our spirituality, it wasn't even our kingdoms, it was because we are African. The light-skinned/dark-skinned difference didn't do this it was because we are African.
This is an interesting perspective. Thank you for sharing it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perception
You couldn't tell me why you would feel a Pan-African approach would not be so great, and the Sub-Saharan Africa context you keep bringing up wouldn't validate your argument.
I said I didn't think it would be successful because Africans are such a large and diverse group, making it difficult to unite them as one powerful, cohesive force. This is not me saying I want Pan-Africanism to fail or that it could not possibly work under any circumstance. Rather, it would have to work hard to overcome those difficulties that have proven fatal to other Pan-X movements. This is not a value judgment but a practical observation. That's why I'm asking what about Pan-Africanism makes it more likely to succeed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perception
What reason would you need to know about Pan-African ideologies anyways?
What reason did you post this thread? To toot your own horn? Or did you actually want to start a discussion? I'm genuinely curious as to what, in your opinion, Pan-Africanism entails. One of my good black friends from undergrad was an Africana Studies major, and none of his professors I had discussions with believed in that ideology, so I'm genuinely interested in hearing what you think.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perception
My tone is not self-righteous, I don't feel I have all the answers nor do I insinuate that I do. My tone is more so uncompromising, unyielding and unapologetic when it comes to the opposition, whether they are black or white.
Your tone definitely was self-righteous before. It isn't now, and I in turn apologize for making a snippy remark about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perception
When it comes to the whole Jewish thing, well I didn't even know you was a Jew, it's not even pertinent to this discussion, so why would I bring it up.
Unfortunately, certain key black leaders like Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton would disagree with you. I'm not trying to put words into your mouth, but based on your remark in the other thread, I'm naturally on the defensive. I agree it's not relevant to this conversation, so we can (and probably should) drop the matter.
The United States Gouvt from the top down happily pushed crack into black neighbourhoods. It's all documented and quite disgusting. FIGHT THE POWER! FIGHT THE WHITE MAN'S PSYCHOLOGY!
Quote:
Originally Posted by kat949
Psychology in itself is highly grounded and based on socialpolitical influences. A part of the reason why it's not considered hard science is because it is socially biased.
What one considers to be a mental illness ex- not making eye contact in some cultures is considered to be a developmental delay in western psychology.
There's a branch in psychology that focuses on oppression and tosses DSM aside, and is firmly based on examining social inequalities for effective systemic change.
Individuals can change, but the environment is still highly influential (allowing people to move up and down the social ladders).
People often don't think how privilege/oppression go hand-in-hand so they create these social stigmas as to not deal with the real problems of society.
How can you compare sexual orientation to an actual race? . You like to twist concepts that I propose to black people as racist, when in fact it is the exact opposite, you can't have world peace with a group of people, and entire race of people, stricken with self-hate, you can't get help from the people who perpetuate this system either. This isn't about being special as you put it, it is about uprooting the seeds of self-hate through the vehicle of self.
What you're preaching is the new "We are one" rhetoric I keep hearing but it's not true in theory, practice or reality.
I am a global Pan-Africanist and Garveyite, so this is the approach I will take. Before I go any further with this discussion with you, I would like to know if you are black or white and yes it is imperative to the discussion.
You need to get out of your groupthink mode and stand on your own two intellectual feet. There are no black people or white people. Only people. The only difference is that light bounces off your skin at a different wavelength than those with white skin. And indeed at a different wavelength than other black people with a different shade or hue than you. In either case, it is irrelevant to who you are. You are what you do, not what some unconnected other people do. You get no points or credit for the accident of ancestry. It is worth nothing, and you need to learn that before you waste your life embroiled in an irrelevancy.
You need to get out of your groupthink mode and stand on your own two intellectual feet. There are no black people or white people. Only people. The only difference is that light bounces off your skin at a different wavelength than those with white skin. And indeed at a different wavelength than other black people with a different shade or hue than you. In either case, it is irrelevant to who you are. You are what you do, not what some unconnected other people do. You get no points or credit for the accident of ancestry. It is worth nothing, and you need to learn that before you waste your life embroiled in an irrelevancy.
That's most definitely not the only differences but I won't even get into that. And no you other people in America besides the native have your history and culture and native tongues and cultural identity intact. African history is world history and it may sound like I'm putting my history on a pedestal but its true. Now here you are telling me there's no black people or white people, get out the rose colored glasses mind state, this isn't a "we are the world" song so spare the "we are one" bs. We aren't one and we aren't equal, so save that for someone else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheITGuy
What's the difference between saying:
"White people can not understand the psyche of black people, so they shouldn't be allowed."
and
"Black people can not possible understand what it means to vote, so they shouldn't be allowed."
Because we (blacks) have been under the system of white supremacy and it instills self hatred at an early age. The quote which you used to counter ormy quote is much different, being that it is a policy used to keep a people under a more overt form of supremacy and relinquishing the power in a society based on elective politics based on no merit except that of overt form of white supremacy.
I'll leave this here to support my above statement:
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
