Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Toure on sexually heroic slave women

Toure, black journalist, MSNBC talking head, husband of Lebanese-born Rita Nakouzi and author of “Never Drank the Kool-Aid” (2006), said this on Twitter in the space of seven tweets (now wiped off):

If you’re Black & dislike seeing Black men w white women, does it give you pause to know that the Klan agrees with you? I u’stand & respect the nationalistic dating perspective & abhor the Klan’s segregative impulse. But politics is making strange bedfellows.

Many, many, many of our great grandmothers were raped in slavery. But surely a few of em were loved and surely some… …Some were cunning and brilliant enough to use their bodies to gain liberation thus fooling massa. Of course most were raped, we know that, but some were sharp enough to trade that good-good for status or liberation. They are absolutely not “ho’s.” They’re sexually heroic. They’re self-liberating by any means necessary.

So, the white penis should’ve gotten an Image Award this weekend? [Funny. But no.]

His punctuation and spelling are too good for him to be drunk. An hour he later blamed his cousin:

I’ve been in yoga class for the last while. My cousin (PhD student/insane mf) used my Blackberry to screw with y’all. Foot, meet his ass.

That was disbelieved. He later said:

I like to be intellectually risque but never want to offend. I crossed that line. Am now redrawing it for myself.  Poorly expressed bizarre ideas and brain farts are not what this space is supposed to be about. Will do better going forward.

At least he had the good sense to avoid the word “if”.

Being caught in a lie is a bad thing for anyone but it is even worse for a journalist. It was Toure, after all, who informed us last summer that Michelle Obama was seen as “basically a ghetto girl” by Martha Vineyard’s black upper-class.

Layered on top of all this is MSNBC’s reaction or, rather, lack thereof. They are not above shutting up fools and calling their remarks “inappropriate”, so their silence is interesting. They probably think the story will not get much play – and it seems they are right. That too is interesting.

Toure is a fool trying to point fingers away from his interracial marriage, but he is not the first to bring up the sexually heroic slave woman thing. Renee of Womanist Musings nailed it (her black-man-bashing aside):

Sexually heroic? They were raped repeatedly..any intercourse between slave and master is RAPE because the power differential would eradicate the possibility of consent. If you don’t understand this basic fact, it is because on some level you believe that men have a right access women’s bodies….  And to even suggest that love could exist in an environment in which the woman was considered chattel is ridiculous. If you love someone, you don’t hold them in bondage and force them to satisfy your every need….

See also:

586 Responses

  1. hmmm…as stupid as this was, it is an opinion that he’s probably not the only one to have. I think its an insult to our ancestors though. even if there was a ongoing sexual relationship between slave master and slave woman, its still such an imbalance of power, you can hardly call it consential. it was about survival, slave women were rarely given their freedom for having sexual relationship w/slave owner so i don’t know what he’s talking about w/ that.

    Like


  2. its funny how whenever a bw is violated in someway, it always gets watered down and somehow the bw is a co-conspirator.

    Like


  3. Ok, let me get this straight: this guy is a black journalist, right? Who is married to a non-black woman? Good.

    So, was his rant supposed to be a support for interracial relationships, or what?

    After all, he was talking about the rape during slave times. I bet he knows it’s a touchy subject.

    On the other hand, I am not sure if his twitter rant deserves its own post. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like what he said, but… Was he really the only one today? Is this really news? I mean, for some reason I thought people say similar crap all the time. Of course, that doesn’t mean it’s ok to say such things, but I don’t understand why this guy deserved his own post. Is he a celebrity? Or because he’s a journalist?

    Like


  4. Because he is a journalist. Thad said pretty much the same thing but I did not do a post on him.

    Like


  5. I totally agree Peanut. I see a pattern with these blokes in IR’s. Granted I’m over here across the pond and don’t know much about the US.
    As I said on another thread these men are using the air waves to effectively tell the whole world their views on their own black foremothers.
    They just can’t resist dragging black women into their complicated lives and rantings!

    Dumb man, does it give him pause to know that he’s in cahoots with the klan to think violated black women were trading in their bodies for liberation? Oh the irony.
    Silly man!

    Like


  6. Mira said:

    “So, was his rant supposed to be a support for interracial relationships, or what?

    After all, he was talking about the rape during slave times. I bet he knows it’s a touchy subject.”

    His argument has the same form as white people saying “Black people are racist too!” When people do not like you doing x, point out that they do x too. And, if possible, find a much worse example of x on their part.

    So, if black women do not like that he is married to a Middle Eastern woman, well they used to sleep with white slave masters – and it was not always rape. So there! He is derailing.

    Like


  7. WTF is the whole world going crazy, WTF was this guy thinking!!!

    I agree with peanut, 99.9% of slave women that had sex with the slave master WERE NOT FREED! I dont know where he got that crazy ass idea.

    Whenever a black woman is put into a sexually compromising position there is always some sort of spin to lessen the true nature. Case in point Thomas Jefferson and his slave, whenever people talk about it they try and spin it into the great love affair when we know damn well at best it was sex in exchange for SOME privileges(she wasnt even freed) and at worst rape.

    SMDH

    Like


  8. Does anyone else notice how common it is for black men in interracial relationships (and otherwise) to put down and degrade black women? Maybe it’s just me. I haven’t noticed the same trend with black women in interracial relationships, excluding some women online.

    Also, I couldn’t care less about black men being in interracial relationships. I have no claim on them and I have no preference for black men over other men. *shrugs*

    Like


  9. also i do not understand the phrase not drinking the koolaid

    Like


  10. Thad said pretty much the same thing but I did not do a post on him.

    Lol. To tell you the truth, I know of only one poster who got not one, but two personalized posts here!

    So, if black women do not like that he is married to a Middle Eastern woman, well they used to sleep with white slave masters – and it was not always rape. So there! He is derailing.

    I understand what you’re saying, but it still makes no sense. I mean, it doesn’t make sense logically. Is this the way to say- “black women, you started dating interracially first! yes, some of them were raped, but many had consensual sex with white men. So stop blaming me for marrying interracially, because you stared first!” It does sound like that. Meanwhile, it is disrespectful to all those women, his own ancestors, who were abused during the slave times.

    I am not particularly fond of “they raped us!” argument, but not because I think it’s untrue, but because I don’t think someone’s personal suffering should be used as an argument against interracial relationships. There are a lot of “they raped us” arguments in my culture so I know what I’m talking about (sure, it could be different, but it does looks the same).

    However, it’s not the important here. What I’m saying is, this guy looks like he’s feeling guilty because he married a Caucasian woman and not a black one. Maybe he thinks black women disapprove. But is he a grown up? I don’t think nobody blames him personally for anything. So I don’t understand why he’s taking all of this personally.

    Like


  11. Natasha W

    Agreed 100%, am glad these men are exposing themselves to the world. No you’re not imagining it, I’ve noticed the same thing, and I doubt we’re in the minority. He’s one of many. These men have major issues, wow, good luck to the women they’re with, they’ll need it married to hypocrities like him!

    Like


  12. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=drinking+the+kool+aid

    I think consensual sex needs to happen between two people where one isn’t the slave and one the slavemaster

    Like


  13. i am just so sick of people neglecting black women’s feelings. everytime something happens its the black woman’s fault. I’m all stressed out. All bitter. I used to be a happy person, now everytime I get on the blogosphere someone has something stupid to say about bw.

    Black women getting raped somehow is magically okay…funny. Can’t get away from it. everytime i get on a forum if its not about bw looking like monkies and being ugly,its about bw being “unrapeable,” sexual beings who lusted after wm during slavery.

    I need to get off of the internet cuz its making me bitter and crazy…

    Like


  14. @ Mira:

    Toure is 38 but from the way he talks apparently he is not completely comfortable about being married interraciallly for whatever reason.

    His argument does not have to make sense – it is a derailing tactic. As long as it changes the subject or gets the other side to walk off in anger it worked.

    Like


  15. @ peanut:

    The reason you hear all this kind of stuff on the Internet is because the Internet has not yet been co-opted by the powers that be – like how newspapers and television have.

    Like


  16. Black women can’t catch a break! its a conspiracy…a conspiracy to destroy bw. this type of attitude is why when bw get raped or molested people never believe her…this is the reason bw get no respect. i can’t even look at this lovely image of michelle obama w/out seeing the chim pict pop into my head. that is what people do to black women’s image…distort our perceptions!

    Like


  17. Mira, exactly. Even if we assume there were female slaves who used sexual means in order to increase the chances of survival and well-being of themselves and their children (which is pure conjecture on his part and the part of others, AFAIK), how does this compare in any way to a modern day interracial relationship? A halfwit can see that these two situations are not even close to similar.

    MerriMay, I thought maybe it was just the particular men I knew. But if you’re across the pond and noticing the same thing, there might be something to this.

    Like


  18. I think the more interesting issue is why he feels the need to defend his marriage.

    Mother complex? Insecurity? Who knows?

    Do African Americans want to assimilate into mainstream society or not?

    Hmmm… I thought African-Americans were already a part of mainstream American society; woven into its very fabric? Would the US as we know it be the same without the influence blacks? I don’t think so.

    If they do, upwardly mobile black people like Toure should be able to marry into the non-black population without being harassed by their co-ethnics. If African Americans don’t want to assimilate, then they need to stop complaining about being marginalized by white society.

    Strawman much? Why are you presuming Toure is “harassed” for his relationship? Where does it say that?

    Like


  19. FG –

    You have an interesting observation with Denzel; however, I believe Denzel has matured a lot since that role. (For the same reason we all tend to grow as human beings in this walk of life.)

    I recall an interview with him shortly after the filming of “Remember the Titans”. The actual coaches that the movie is based on and he (Denzel) were on Oprah (i think???) Basically, the film changed his perspective a lot regarding the “perceptions” of the black community above.

    To Natasha – “Hmmm… I thought African-Americans were already a part of mainstream American society; woven into its very fabric? Would the US as we know it be the same without the influence blacks? I don’t think so. ”

    I agree with you. It is not as polarized as FG states in his contradiction to your statement, though there is a degree of truth to it. “American” society would not be what it is today without the contribution of all its residents.

    Like


  20. Did anyone ever think the white man may not have been the slaves master that in some instances it could have been some poor white who did odd jobs on the plantation? Or that every relationship before 1865 between a Black woman and a white man was between a master and slave. The Melungeons, and other groups of people in the Ozarks and Appalachia are an attest to that.

    Not all Black people who have white ancestry ocurred during slavery and the light skin and straight hair did not always come from white people.
    I wonder if some of our ancestors might have also been the progeny of rape by another Black person.

    What does the statement “slave women were raped by the white man” achieve in defining Black people. It is fact to those it happened to, but it is not an argument. I see that statement so many times here and I wonder to what purpose.

    Like


  21. Blacks and whites form two parallel societies in the United States. They practice different cultures, live in different places, and even speak different English dialects.

    So “mainstream” = “white?” I didn’t know African-Americans still needed to assimilate into a culture they’ve been a part of for hundreds of years. The way you speak, one would think they were recent immigrants.

    He’s probably taking flack from black women.

    I’m guessing you don’t know what a fallacious argument is? What you are doing is affirming the consequent. Toure may (or may not) get flack for his relationship, but its a huge jump in reasoning for you to assume this and then proceed to berate blacks/black women for it.

    Like


  22. Blacks and whites form two parallel societies in the United States.

    This is one of the most shocking things I learned here. I had no idea.

    Does that mean blacks and whites don’t socialize with each other? Is it that shocking to have friends of different race? Ok, I knew about relationships and marriage.

    And what do you mean by “different culture”? All I can think of here are some ugly stereotypes (“ghetto” culture vs rednecks). But then again, most of the blacks are not ghetto and most of the whites are not rednecks (right???)

    The movie The Pelican Brief was criticized as racist because it did not feature a romance between the main characters played by Denzel Washington and Julia Roberts. In fact, an interracial romance was included in the original plot, but it was taken out at the request of Denzel because he thought it would hurt his image among black women.

    Lol, this is interesting. When I heard about the Pelican Brief “incident”, I thought it was racist. Plain and simple. I didn’t think much about it. To me, racism had nothing to do with being white, so Denzel did a racist thing, end of story.

    Today I can understand Denzel’s decision better, but I still think it was silly to change the script because of it.

    Like


  23. “So “mainstream” = “white?” I didn’t know African-Americans still needed to assimilate into a culture they’ve been a part of for hundreds of years. The way you speak, one would think they were recent immigrants.”

    You’re right that American popular culture is a blend of Euro- and African-American elements. However, blacks and whites still occupy two largely distinct spheres of social interaction, best represented by the very low level of intermarriage between the two groups.

    “Toure may (or may not) get flack for his relationship, but its a huge jump in reasoning for you to assume this and then proceed to berate blacks/black women for it.”

    I’m not saying it’s all black women or only black women. I’m sure many black women experience these issues when they are in an irr.

    Like


  24. Mira, I don’t know where FG lives but where I grew up, a diverse city, blacks and whites regularly interacted. Maybe their views on American society differ in general, but I never subscribed to the “white culture” and “black culture” line of thinking.

    Like


  25. “Mira, I don’t know where FG lives but where I grew up, a diverse city, blacks and whites regularly interacted. Maybe their views on American society differ in general, but I never subscribed to the “white culture” and “black culture” line of thinking.”

    What are you talking about? Everyone knows that there is a social chasm between blacks and whites.

    Like


  26. “And what do you mean by “different culture”? All I can think of here are some ugly stereotypes (“ghetto” culture vs rednecks). But then again, most of the blacks are not ghetto and most of the whites are not rednecks (right???)”

    Well, the ghetto culture is more than a stereotype. It is widespread, but it does not dominate black society. The cultural differences go beyond that though.

    Like


  27. FG,

    However, blacks and whites still occupy two largely distinct spheres of social interaction, best represented by the very low level of intermarriage between the two groups.

    Interracial marriages comprise a miniscule amount of marriages, period. The low percentage of intermarriage says that Americans, by and large, marry within race.

    I’m not saying it’s all black women or only black women. I’m sure many black women experience these issues when they are in an irr.

    That doesn’t make your argument less fallacious. You’re still assuming too much on too little evidence.

    Like


  28. When I mentioned cultural differences, I was not saying that one culture is necessarily better than the other. I was just pointing out that blacks and whites are generally not culturally integrated like they tend to be in Latin America.

    Like


  29. “Interracial marriages comprise a miniscule amount of marriages, period. The low percentage of intermarriage says that Americans, by and large, marry within race.”

    Asians marry whites at very high rates. Latinos do as well, but not to the same extent.

    Like


  30. To FG – keep in mind that being Latino: one can be Black or White and everything in between. To say, “Latinos marry whites is contributing to the fallacy of either: Black culture OR White culture. This separatist viewpoint is what continues to drive the racial lines -primarily in the U.S.

    Many Latinos are white. So if a white Latino marries a White American, then what? American and many Latin American cultures share in both Black cultural influences and white cultural influences that make up the modern-day New World. We are moving forward and progressing into a more diverse society – with contributions from many cultural and ethnic backgrounds. We are growing in similarities, not differences.

    Peace, Happiness, Love & Understanding to all…..

    Like


  31. “To FG – keep in mind that being Latino: one can be Black or White and everything in between. To say, “Latinos marry whites is contributing to the fallacy of either: Black culture OR White culture. This separatist viewpoint is what continues to drive the racial lines -primarily in the U.S.

    Many Latinos are white. So if a white Latino marries a White American, then what? American and many Latin American cultures share in both Black cultural influences and white cultural influences that make up the modern-day New World. We are moving forward and progressing into a more diverse society – with contributions from many cultural and ethnic backgrounds. We are growing in similarities, not differences.

    Peace, Happiness, Love & Understanding to all…..”

    Yes, Latinos come in all races and mixtures, and it tends to be the lighter ones who are marrying whites. I’m not sure if my statements really are in conflict with the rest of what you wrote.

    Like


  32. The black-white color line in the US is definitely breaking down, but it’s a slow process.

    Like


  33. FG,

    Asians marry whites at very high rates.

    Last time I checked, the percentage was in the single digits. Hardly “a very high rate.” Interracial marriage gets a lot of press, and it is increasing, but that doesn’t mean it’s currently widespread.

    Yes, Latinos come in all races and mixtures, and it tends to be the lighter ones who are marrying whites.

    Do you have a source for this?

    Like


  34. Peanut, Im feeling for you. I wish you wouldnt let the ignorance in the media affect how you think. Beleive me, its just a few peoples opinions. There will always be people who are going to say provoking things and get more attention. I hate to hear insulting things about black women also. Michelle is such an extrodinary woman,no cartoon will ever take her greatness away.

    “drink the kool aid…” refers to the people who reverand Jimmy Jones passed out poisened kool aid to. When people refer to that , its a referance that if you drink the kool aid, you are just going along with the crowd because someone tells you to drink a kool aid that is poison.

    Not only have black people been there at the beginning of emerging American culture, they have set the trends in most of our popular dance and music. I dont care if its rock and roll, or Louis Armstrong influencing Crosby, Sinatra and Holidaday, or the banjo in country music. Black Americans have set the trends in American music.

    Like


  35. on Thu Mar 11th 2010 at 18:21:54 Patricia Kayden

    Doesn’t appear that there will be any repercussions for Toure’s nonsensical statements — not surprising because I’ve heard Black men make such statements before.

    I guess some Black men envy Black women for having been raped by White men during slavery and the Jim Crow era.

    Says a lot about how messed up some Black men are!!

    Like


  36. Toure’s comments got me thinking about how little we really know about interracial rape during slavery. We know that there was a considerable amount of interracial sex, but to what degree was it coercive? I haven’t been able to find any quantitative data on rape during slavery. We don’t know the absolute number of slaves raped or the percentage of slaves raped. Then, of course, we have a grey area, in which sex may not have been coerced and perhaps slave women used their womanly wiles to advance themselves and their offspring. Maybe slave women, like many black women today, just wanted light-skinned, straight-haired babies, leading them to have lots of sex with white guys. I’m not saying this constituted the bulk of interracial relationships of that era, but we have no way of knowing. Adding to this the natural tendency of all women, regardless of race, to be wildly attracted to powerful men, and we have a very clouded picture.

    The view that all intercourse between master and slave is rape seems naive to me. Certainly, masters were more powerful than slaves, but masters were not ALL-POWERFUL, and slaves, though relatively weak ,were not complete weaklings. We have to remember that it took a considerable amount of stability to run a plantation effectively. Widespread rape of black women would have undermined the stability of the plantation system. What black man would have gone out to work the fields after having his wife or daughter raped repeatedly during the night? What black woman would have worked the kitchen after she or one of her relatives had been ravished during the night? The assumption that slaves didn’t possess a degree of power implies that slaves were basically easily intimidated children at the hands of their masters. I don’t think this was the case.

    Renee’s view also neglects the power imbalance present in ALL interpersonal relationships. Whether the relationships are between colleagues at work, friends at a bar or husband and wife at dinner, power imbalances exist. Not only do they exist, they are the norm. Again, women the world over, regardless of financial or educational status, are attracted to powerful men. Hypergamy, the tendency of women to prefer men who out-rank them, is alive and well. It seems reasonable to assume it was alive and well during slavery, and that slave women would have been attracted to their masters and overseers. Black women of our current era are attracted to powerful white men, so why is it so hard to believe that black slave women would have had similar feelings of attraction?

    We know that today, there is still a considerable amount of white on black interracial sex. We know that white men still pretty much run things. We also know that there is an infinitesimally small amount of white on black rape. So, why aren’t more white men raping black women today if white on black rape was so common in the past? My guess, and this is only a guess, is that there wasn’t much raping during slavery either. This is NOT to say that there wasn’t ANY raping. Like many American blacks, my family has stories of ancestors being raped by white men. But we really can’t say for certain the degree of rape and whether rape was systematic. Many critics would point to the degree of admixture of American blacks (approximately 18% on average) to support the view that rape was widespread. This is inconclusive. Perhaps the offspring of interracial pairings were just more attractive to blacks, leading mixed race blacks to out-reproduce “pure” blacks. We know that, as was mentioned in the colorism thread, that men prefer women lighter than themselves and women prefer men darker than themselves. So, this theory is at least plausible.

    I think interracial rape during slavery is played up by black activists, especially black radical feminists, because it allows whites to be pilloried without proof of crime. This is an especially useful tool for radical black feminists because mentioning slave rape serves a dual purpose:

    1) It shames white men into feeling guilty about the supposed unrestrained carnal desires of their long dead rapist ancestors.

    2) It shames black men for the supposed cowardice displayed by their long dead weak and child-like male ancestors.

    For a black feminist, slave rape is a perfect “fork”. The feminist gets to shame two birds with one accusation.

    Note: If anyone has good data on slave rape in the US, please present it. I want DATA, not anecdotes. I have enough familial anecdotes.

    Like


  37. He’s one to talk. I wondered if he was biracial and trying to prove a point or discuses his past. Nope. Just doesn’t quite know how to get a point across. He didn’t seem to understand his position in all this.

    I don’t feel threatened by the KKK having the same opinion as me. Though I believe we are both deluded, they know damn well they don’t want to loose what little of a heritage they have to hold onto. They know damn well children help to drive a future they want to see.

    Like


  38. Again, the game plan of the post is to indict whites for some unprovable claim of misdeeds in the long-ago past.

    It appears black mythology includes an ongoing narrative devoted to the unfounded story of white men freely raping black women. Undoubtedly white slave owners took sexual advantage of female slaves like men in power have always taken advantage of subordinate females.

    However, the myth makes it clear the real story is the rape of black women by Black Men.

    There seems to be a body of literature devoted to this topic. Moreover, in many African nations the rape of black women by black military or rebel soldiers appears to be the common practice today.

    Furthermore, in Africa, and elsewhere, sexual exploitation of black women by more powerful black men is standard operating procedure.

    Jacob Zuma, for example. Not only has he been accused of rape, he has multiple wives and recently fathered his 20th child.

    Clearly the landscape of black society is one that sees the sexual exploitation of women as normal. But something in this reality seems to drive blacks to accuse white slave-owners in the ante-bellum South of rape to hide an unsavory contemporary truth.

    Like


  39. FG,

    What part of Latin America are you looking at? I don’t see much integration when Argentinians are looked as the “White” cream of the crop, while Mexicans (or anyone named “Jose” or “Maria”) are at the bottom of the barrel. Even in the US, look at the difference in treatment of Puerto Ricans and Cubans vs. Mexicans and Dominicans. Yes I know there are different political circumstances in those 4 countries, but who’s more likely to self-label as “White” vs. “Hispanic”?

    Like


  40. Jasmin –

    Its funny you mention that. Speaking from my own observations among many friends of all the nationalities you describe (and my own personal experiences with Brazil) – feelings of superiority of Mexicans is quite high. Many of the other Latin groups tend to look “down” at Mexico while looking upon themselves as “better”. Many often look “up” to Brazil because it is something different, but still a “Latino source of pride.” I don’t agree with any of these views, but as evidenced, discourse is everywhere regardless of “Black/White” separatist views. Ironically, the Puerto Ricans, Dominicans, Cubans and Brazilians tend to be much more racially diverse – bridging the racial divide of only having “Black OR White”.

    In recent times, the census added white hispanic, white non-hispanic, black hispanic, black non-hispanic… (Something of that sort)

    Its crazy. And, here we are talking about Black OR White.

    Like


  41. Amen to your whole passage RR, but particularly this part:

    I think interracial rape during slavery is played up by black activists, especially black radical feminists, because it allows whites to be pilloried without proof of crime. This is an especially useful tool for radical black feminists because mentioning slave rape serves a dual purpose:

    1) It shames white men into feeling guilty about the supposed unrestrained carnal desires of their long dead rapist ancestors.

    2) It shames black men for the supposed cowardice displayed by their long dead weak and child-like male ancestors.

    For a black feminist, slave rape is a perfect “fork”. The feminist gets to shame two birds with one accusation.

    I for one am getting tired of listening to some of these women carry on as if A) they were there personally B) these are the only women in history to be subjected to mass rape.

    I mean how often do you hear Native American women who were also raped during the same time period use it as a “weapon” against Native men?

    How often do you hear Jewish women using the holocaust and unrelenting abuse as a weapon against Jewish men?

    In WWII Japanese soldiers sexually abused the women of the Asian countries it conquered and turned them into “comfort girls”. Don’t hear to many Asian women throwing it in the face of Asian men.

    But leave it to these black activists and especially Black feminist, who are integrationist and assimilationist when it is to their benefit (e.g. working for corporate America, dating White men, etc) are quick to break out the slave rape card when it is to their convenience.

    Vicious irony is these Black activists/feminist are exploiting the Slave women for their own selfish ends just as the white masters they chide.

    Like


  42. oops TYPO — what I meant to say, was not “feelings of superiority of Mexicans is quite high.”

    but this – Many Latinos having feelings of superiority over Mexicans is quite high. (as in I’m better)

    Like


  43. News Flash to Black Radical Feminists:

    “This (rape) is an especially useful tool for radical black feminists because mentioning slave rape serves a dual purpose:

    “1) It shames white men into feeling guilty about the supposed unrestrained carnal desires of their long dead rapist ancestors.”

    Nope. The level of white guilt is hovering at ZERO.

    and:

    “2) It shames black men for the supposed cowardice displayed by their long dead weak and child-like male ancestors.”

    Please. Too silly for consideration.

    Like


  44. However, the myth makes it clear the real story is the rape of black women by Black Men.

    Actually the real story is that rape is mostly committed intraracially and no race is immune.

    Like


  45. Color of luv,

    I think the Census change is interesting, but misguided since I know plenty of Hispanic people who consider “Hispanic” to be their race. So using it just as an ethnicity is moot at this point since a) it’s impossible to determine what blood proportion makes you White Hispanic instead of Black Hispanic b) there’s so much indigenous blood (especially in Mexico) that the number of Native American Hispanics is probably greatly underestimated.

    Somebody slap me–I think I’m actually about to agree w/no_slappz. (Talk about drinking the Kool-aid…) I don’t think any White men think about rape during slavery–the general consensus is that slavery = bad, and most people don’t need to take it further than that. And I’ve never heard of Black men feeling cowardly because of female slave rape–the stories I’ve most often seen perpetuated are those about the collective struggle for survival that Black men and women endured under slavery, hence, why slaves married even though those marriages didn’t mean anything to the slaveowners.

    IMO, sex between slave and master = rape. So there may have been (and probably was) consensual sex between White men and Black women during slavery, it just wasn’t between slaves and masters (maybe slaves and White indentured servants or free Black women and White men). That seems pretty simple to me–I don’t really get what all of the hullabaloo is about.

    Like


  46. RR says,
    We don’t know the absolute number of slaves raped or the percentage of slaves raped. Then, of course, we have a grey area, in which sex may not have been coerced and perhaps slave women used their womanly wiles to advance themselves and their offspring. Maybe slave women, like many black women today, just wanted light-skinned, straight-haired babies, leading them to have lots of sex with white guys. I’m not saying this constituted the bulk of interracial relationships of that era, but we have no way of knowing. Adding to this the natural tendency of all women, regardless of race, to be wildly attracted to powerful men, and we have a very clouded picture.

    laromana says,
    RR,
    Are you serious? Your WARPED, IGNORANT, OFFENSIVE, ANTI-BW statements are OUTRAGEOUS regardless of whether you can find “absolute numbers” of slave rapes or not (“good data on slave rape in the US”). It is ABSURD for you to “SPECULATE” as to WHY BW
    “had sex” with their WHITE SLAVE MASTERS.
    The FACT that they were FORCED to have sex with their WHITE SLAVE MASTERS makes it RAPE.

    AS has been said before (and documented historically), BW were SLAVES and DID NOT have the OPTION to reject sex from their WHITE SLAVE MASTERS. That is why the laws in America DID NOT RECOGNIZE RAPE when it came to Black women/girls. This made it possible for WHITE SLAVE MASTERS (ANY WM) to rape, sexually abuse, and commit any sex crime against Black women/girls WITHOUT CONSEQUENCE.

    It is this SICKENING dynamic of ANTI-BW RACISM/HATE that you should examine instead of trying to put a “positive spin” on the DISGUSTING/DEGARDING/DEMEANING treatment that Black women/girls sufferred from WHITE SLAVE MASTERS/OTHER WM during the days of slavery/Jim Crow.

    An OBVIOUS reason why the rape of BW by WM isn’t as common today as it was during the days of slavery/Jim Crow is because BW are not SLAVES and now have certain RIGHTS that allow them to protect themselves from this type of abuse.

    It is this OBVIOUS HISTORICAL ANTI-BW RACISM/HATE that is behind persistent present day ANTI-BW LIES/MYTHS/STEREOTYPES that CONTINUE TRASHING the HUMANITY/DIGNITY/FEMININITY of BW.

    .

    Like


  47. High-five Laromana! RR, you just got pwned (and should read a book, because your opinions are too ridiculous to merit comment).

    Like


  48. No_Slappz views are so typical. He must be Kyle Ranier reincarnated:
    ______________________________________-
    Haterade at the Goodblackman.com forum:

    A perfect example of an angry white male.

    Reply to Black Royalty
    Posted by Kyle Rainer on 10/4/2004

    If anyone wonders why racial tensions are so high in this country, they need look no further than articles such as those you’ve posted from “Disgusted White Girl” and “Black Royalty”. I’m a firm believer that people make you who you are and this is a prime example of why people become prejudice. This served no purpose other than to rile both blacks and whites. That being said, you’ve successfully provoked me to rebut “Black Royalty’s” rational, not to mention his sense of history. I don’t expect this to be posted since it does not flatter black women (much like “Black Royalty’s” article does little to compliment white women), but at least I feel like I’ve made an attempt to defend our women in the same public forum given to “Black Royalty”.
    Dear Black Royalty,

    Let me start by saying that, I do not intend to defend “Disgusted White Girl” for her poor choice in men. If she likes men who are insecure, afraid, weak, and intimidated (your words), that’s her problem. My guess is that no white man would probably have her anyway. The fact is interracial couples always have been and always will be sneered at. To her I say if you want to play in the kitchen, shut up and be prepared to deal with the heat. As for you, although you try to portray yourself as the upper crust of black society, there is a huge difference between being “educated” and being intellectual. I think you confused the two. First, you should try using spell check and grammar check. It’s a wonderfully useful tool. And whether you intended to or not, you did “waste your precious time slandering white people”, and if a white person had written half of what you did, they’d be labeled a racist; no questions asked. So let’s test that theory.

    First of all, donÂ’t assume that every white person you meet has ancestors who owned slaves. Many whites are descendants of immigrants who had very little, if anything to do with any part of it. So before you go thinking that it was the enslaved black women who saved white AmericaÂ’s taste buds and infants, think again. We donÂ’t owe them anything. Slavery was a horrible part of American history, and it happened over 300 years ago. I think itÂ’s time you all get over it and stop thinking every white person owes you something. You mention black Egyptian Queens such as Hatsepshut and Nitocris (not Nitorcris) as though they are YOUR ancestors. So are you African American or Egyptian? They are two different cultures, so pick one and stick with it. The way I see it, if you are of Egyptian descent, then YOUR ancestors enslaved the Hebrews for hundreds of years (yes, during HatsepshutÂ’s reign), so IÂ’m thinking you probably owe them some type of restitution. Besides, Hatsepshut often dressed as a male and had numerous female lovers. ThatÂ’s some role model youÂ’re invoking for black women. Maybe YOU should read your history. And if you are African American, do you think that European whites were the only ones living in caves during the Egyptian dynasties? Yes, IÂ’m sure the tribal lords in the African jungles were very busy devising the geometrics to the pyramids in 1500 B.C.

    Also, I don’t know what “day” you were talking about, nor do I know what elite neighborhood you were raised, but I’m 41 years old, I don’t ever remember any “days” when young black girls were raised in the church and were careful about losing their virginity. Maybe you’re talking about pre-segregation times when the moral fabric of this country was something to be proud of for both blacks and whites. I live near a large city where young black girls between the ages of 15 and 19 have had the highest pregnancy rate among all races for the past 15 years. And you call white women easy and docile? That doesn’t sound like strict moral upbringing to me. In fact, it sounds like young black women are giving it up fairly regularly. You say black men are looking for women to control? I assume much in the same way men like Bobby Brown, Ike Turner, James Brown, O.J. Simpson, and Kobe Bryant “control” their women. I would expect nothing more from a culture which glamorizes rape, murder, gang violence and drugs; a culture where it’s considered cool to be an underwear-showing law-breaking thug; where you’re judged more by the amount of jewelry worn and whether or not your car rolls or bounces down the street rather than feeding and educating your kids. Yes, if you’re looking for a virtuous woman to be a mother to your children, I’m sure you can find your pick of them dancing in hip-hop videos. Perhaps if more young black women took the time to actually parent their illegitimate children, the cities would be a better place to live and public schools would be a safe place to send your kids.

    You also mention the strength of black women. Are you sure youÂ’re not confusing strength with being loud-mouthed and belligerent? Or by strength, do you imply exploiting government assistance programs rather than striving to achieve prosperity on your own? Come to think of it, youÂ’re right. Black women do get pretty strong if you threaten to end the government gravy train. Or is that loud-mouthed and belligerent? I can never tell. But to that end, if you want the government to support you, maybe you should move to France. And by the way, why is it that black women get their hair straightened, softened and highlighted? It couldnÂ’t possibly be that they want their hair to look more like that of a white womanÂ’s could it?

    The bottom line is that if you believe all black women to be African Queens, youÂ’re entitled to your opinion. At least now I know why I canÂ’t get good service at a McDonaldÂ’s restaurant…too many queens working there I suppose. But I have a virtuous woman who is strong, intelligent, beautiful, and would be a fantastic wife, mother and soul mate if given the chance. To top it all off, sheÂ’s white! But if I ever decide to find a woman who is lazy, loud, quarrelsome, and confrontational, IÂ’ll be sure to try your side of the fence. And if I sound like a racist, I sincerely donÂ’t mean to; after all, no offense taken, none given, right?

    _________________________
    No_Slappz just want to minimize history just as Kyle bashes Black women to justify his choice of being with White women.
    _________
    La Reyna

    Like


  49. Jasmin – you said:

    “I think the Census change is interesting, but misguided since I know plenty of Hispanic people who consider “Hispanic” to be their race. So using it just as an ethnicity is moot at this point since a) it’s impossible to determine what blood proportion makes you White Hispanic instead of Black Hispanic b) there’s so much indigenous blood (especially in Mexico) that the number of Native American Hispanics is probably greatly underestimated”

    MY COMMENT: This would be a great topic. I acutally participated in a lengthy discussion regarding this very subject on a predominantly American-Braziliandominated thread. It ran amok!!!! So…. go figure!!! Personally, I think using the term “hispanic” to identify race is a great injustice.

    Jasmin, you said:

    “IMO, sex between slave and master = rape. So there may have been (and probably was) consensual sex between White men and Black women during slavery, it just wasn’t between slaves and masters (maybe slaves and White indentured servants or free Black women and White men).”

    There indeed were consensual relationships, but I’m sure much of this was not documented (for obvious reasons). There were also instances where chidren of these unions were protected (granted, within the confines of a segregated society.)

    Abagond actually makes mention of one such case, very well documented, of a White Glapion (surname) family member, foregoing his classification of White so that he could LEGALLY marry Marie Laveaux in New Orleans.

    Like


  50. might be difficult to read my second comment under yours Jasmin. -sorry… I need to get this italics/bold thing mastered.

    Like


  51. Color of Luv,

    No worries! I’ve heard of that man before, and I have no doubt that there are other stories like it out there. I just don’t like the idea of romanticizing slave/master relations. They were what they were, and it really disgusts me when people use them either to show a) how Black women really are Jezebels or b) that White men have been digging Black women for centuries (like that’s supposed to be a compliment). Either position is disrepectful, imo.

    Like


  52. You’re welcome, Jasmin. Hopefully, R.R. (and others who share his views) will take your advice and read a book before making ignorant ANTI-BW comments regarding slave era BW rape.

    Like


  53. I was hoping people would just ignore RR. He’s full of it. And not black — I’d put good money on that. If he is black, then we should all give up because Willie Lynch’s methods are still working 300 years later, as he said they woud.

    Like


  54. Multiple Ad hominem attacks on RR = RR hit a nerve mostly speaking the truth

    Like


  55. Just to add you know that Wille Lynch is mythology and he did not exist – but point taken nevertheless he he he

    Like


  56. “MY COMMENT: This would be a great topic. I acutally participated in a lengthy discussion regarding this very subject on a predominantly American-Braziliandominated thread. It ran amok!!!! So…. go figure!!! Personally, I think using the term “hispanic” to identify race is a great injustice.”

    It would simplify everything if they just put a multiracial box on the census. That would encompass the bulk of the American Hispanic population. However, that’s opposed by minority interest groups.

    Like


  57. Jazmin – Point taken! I in no way would ever say “White men have been digging Black women for centuries.”

    It seems we have a lot of similar views. On a lighter note: Men have been “digging” women since Adam & Eve, regardless of skin color. Unfortunately, we as a people of this country and our ‘kin’ elsewhere in the world suffer due to the tragic past of Slavery, Jim Crow, One Drop rules and Segregation. We’ve got to push past the man-made boundaries of race and realize we are all in this boat together. If there is a hole in it, we ALL need to fix it.

    Also, I’d love to talk about more ideas on Census, hispanics, what it means to be Hispanic. (I’ve seen Brazilians refuse this term and go with Lusotanian or Latino -but that is to be posted somewhere else. I’ll go hit the Afro-Latino thread and see if I can’t get it started there. (since it is more relevant elswhere)

    Like


  58. J, Willie Lynch did exist. Whether he actually wrote the document or not is really negligible to my point though.

    Like


  59. … Just to say I am fully aware of the thrust of what you are trying to convey as my last post indicated…

    As for the speech if you are interested:

    http://www.manuampim.com/lynch_hoax1.html

    Like


  60. Truth B. Told — hardly. I won’t dignify RR’s comment with a response because that’s what trolls like him and no_slappz want; someone to waste time refuting their tripe. He’s lucky I even read the whole thing instead of skipping over it like I do to any comment with “no_slappz” at the top

    J — that’s nice.

    Like


  61. J – interesting link!!!

    Thanks for sharing “Death of the Willie Lynch” speech… I’ll go back and look at in more detail. Seems pretty compelling; however, I wonder if there is a counter-argument detailing why it would be authentic.

    Like


  62. Toure and his WARPED/ANTI-BW views on “sexually heroic slave women” is an excellent example of the type of BM that has mentioned on this board who joins ANTI-BW RACISTS/HATERS in promoting ANTI-BW LIES/MYTHS/STEREOTYPES to the world.

    This type of BM seems to lack any sense of self respect that would lead him to PROTECT/HONOR the dignity of BW instead of TRASHING it.

    Like


  63. […] reading Abagond’s blog about this self-important clown I was inspired to do this post.  Toure  recently posted a series […]

    Like


  64. “What part of Latin America are you looking at? I don’t see much integration when Argentinians are looked as the “White” cream of the crop, while Mexicans (or anyone named “Jose” or “Maria”) are at the bottom of the barrel. Even in the US, look at the difference in treatment of Puerto Ricans and Cubans vs. Mexicans and Dominicans. Yes I know there are different political circumstances in those 4 countries, but who’s more likely to self-label as “White” vs. “Hispanic”?”

    I didn’t say that there’s no prejudice in Latin America. I just noted that ethnicity and race don’t coincide in Latin America like they do in the US (as far as I know).

    Like


  65. Well, we have certainly seen arguments on here that fall under the “trying to diminish the evils of slavery”.

    Up front let me say that black women in slavery were between a rock and a hard place.If it wasnt some violent version of rape, it would have to fall under a “resigned to the ugly truth of it all” type rape. What choice did they have? Since they hit the boat they were given the choice to sleep below in horrid conditions or go above for sex with the sailors.

    I dont see what pointing out rape in Africa now has anything to do with rape in slavery in America.

    When it comes to judging a potential person to date, I do feel using the “you are white so you are associated with whites who owned slavery and white privalidge” is not correct and would argue with that.As well as it is relevant that the Arabs had a bigger slave trade and the Caribean and South American had slave trade and Africans conquered sold other Africans into slavery .Because it is just plain truth.

    But I would absolutly never ever use it to diminsh the effects and results of the slave trade in the USA. That is no valid rationalisation what so ever.

    But here we see the exact thing I think is the wrong atitude about facing up to slavery and what effects it has cost the USA. People are trying to diminish it and I think that is the wrong thinking.

    We can only speculate in gut wrenching gag reflex at the situation that black women and men were forced to live under in slavery. I dont think we really can wrap our brains around it to the fullest to comprehend what that meant.

    Of course maybe if we put some white men who rationalise this into deep lock down in a big prison, they might start to get what being resigned to getting raped is .

    This isnt about feeling guilty, its about facing up to the truth and having some attention and listening to the people who’s past relatives suffered this and what ramifications have been passed down generation to generation. I mean you do realise that ramifications have been passed down.

    Like


  66. “I dont see what pointing out rape in Africa now has anything to do with rape in slavery in America”

    Isn’t that is what is termed the ‘red herring’ fallacy argument??

    Like


  67. What interest me about this post is not the comments.
    Since you here these type of responses either stated educatedly or brazenly.

    I reminded of the Public Enemy song ‘ Welcome To The Terrordome:

    Every brother ain’t a brother
    Cause a Black hand
    Squeezed on Malcom X the man
    The shootin’ of Huey Newton
    From a hand of a ni**er who pulled the trigger

    In a way much of what Ture stated precluded the post on Sally Hemmings

    What kind of interests me, perhaps it is best not always try
    to have an analytic mind – well I can always dream on ha ha ha…

    Is what was the conversation that led up to all of this??
    I doubt if you have any of this to hand Abagond, or
    perhaps even tell us, and/or even what took place afterwards, like what pressure was brought to bear tfor him to remove his comments ??

    Like


  68. Just taking a look at the first few pages of Gilberto Freyres “Casa Grande a Senzala”, as he is trying to explain the value and contribution of what African slaves mean to Brazil, who were brought to Brazil, he just casualy mentions how so many white Brazilian men in their past had their first lover as a black girl, or had to bring the sweaty funky shirt of their black lover slave to the first nights of sex with their new white wives just to relax (kind of strange to me ,like an academic generalisation).He is just using this to set up ways to show how great the contributions of black Brazilians from slavery are to to Brazil.

    But the ramification is clear, black women from slavery were meant as easy sex , the go behind the woodshed and get your first experiance, the resigned black girl who had to accept the white mans advance or suffer some kind of day to day harrasment .

    In Brazil, this carries over into today. I know for a fact women who had worked very hard as domestic laborors, living with the employers and ,in more than a few cases,the sons would try to aproach the girls working these jobs and harrass them for sex, sometimes threatening they would be fired if they said anything.

    This is an exact example of an atitude that carries over from slave times into todays dynamic.

    Like


  69. If we being honest…It is a known fact that women in a war type situation are raped. This is one thing that has been fairly consistent over thousands of years. So for people who were considered less than humans (slaves from Africa)…no more really needs to be said

    The problem and contradiction is that people are keen to take pride in their history, in other words ‘all the good bits’. However, when the bad parts are raised most people try to sweep it under the carpet and/or deny it..

    This is even more so when the people bringing it up still remains in your society and oppressed, and highlighting the injustice of the present and past.

    I wonder why my mind goes to some of the posters here.

    Like


  70. Im not sure what you mean about “red herring ” about my post, j

    Like


  71. are you referring to the people Im addressing? Or is it something in exactly what Im saying?

    I made it to show you cant rationaise rape in the Congo now to diminish rape of slaves in American history

    Like


  72. Toure can join John Mayer in the ‘foot in mouth’ club.

    Like


  73. I am referring to the people you are addressing.

    Red Herring: also called a “fallacy of relevance.” This occurs when the speaker is trying to distract the audience by arguing some new topic, or just generally going off topic with an argument.

    or at the very least…

    ‘Ignoratio elenchi’ (also known as irrelevant conclusion or irrelevant thesis) is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question.

    Like


  74. With regard to:

    “Toure can join John Mayer in the ‘foot in mouth’ club”.

    Or should that be ‘foot and mouth disease’ he he he

    Like


  75. ok j thanks for clarigying that

    Like


  76. j, you wrote:

    ““I dont see what pointing out rape in Africa now has anything to do with rape in slavery in America”

    and:

    “Isn’t that is what is termed the ‘red herring’ fallacy argument??”

    The story of white slave-owners raping black female slaves is the “red herring.”

    It distracts from the real issue, which is the ongoing, contemporary occurrence of rape in black societies and nations around the world — today.

    Like


  77. j, you wrote:

    “The problem and contradiction is that people are keen to take pride in their history, in other words ‘all the good bits’. However, when the bad parts are raised most people try to sweep it under the carpet and/or deny it..”

    Muslims practice a lot of revisionist history. Meanwhile, educational levels are so low in most African nations that few people know anything about the histories of their own countries.

    On the other hand, in the US, every man, woman and child is repeatedly reminded of every unsavory historical detail in this country’s past. It has been this way since the founding of the republic.

    Like


  78. C’mon No_Slappz, do you seriously expect me to try to answer what you say here?? It looks as if you regressing once again even from your own perspective…

    As I shake my head…

    Like


  79. j, you wrote:

    “The problem and contradiction is that people are keen to take pride in their history, in other words ‘all the good bits’. However, when the bad parts are raised most people try to sweep it under the carpet and/or deny it..”

    Muslims practice a lot of revisionist history. Meanwhile, educational levels are so low in most African nations that few people know anything about the histories of their own countries.

    On the other hand, in the US, every man, woman and child is repeatedly reminded of every unsavory historical detail in this

    This bit I will address…

    What if:

    “On the other hand, in the US, every man, woman and child is repeatedly reminded of every unsavory historical detail in this”

    ..this is true for those ‘minorities’ living in the US, including the Native Americans

    Are you suggesting that from their perspective they should NOT say so. Just like you who wish to just highlight the ‘good bits’ – mutatis mutandis??

    Like


  80. “Last time I checked, the percentage was in the single digits. Hardly “a very high rate.” Interracial marriage gets a lot of press, and it is increasing, but that doesn’t mean it’s currently widespread.”

    In 2000, 1/5 of all Hispanics and 1/3 of all Asians (foreign and American born) married outside their group.

    Source: http://www.racialicious.com/2009/03/18/interracial-marriage-rate-declines-among-asians/

    Like


  81. He is the same guy that is always on various shows discussing black America and race issues. I’m surprised by his comments.

    Like


  82. FG, I don’t think that is a reliable source (not to mention it being from data over 10 years old). Most sources have the numbers much lower.

    Like


  83. @ RR
    “why aren’t more white men raping black women today if white on black rape was so common in the past?”

    Because whites out number blacks 5 to 1. Which is easier a white man stumbling upon a black woman to rape or a white woman?

    Either way it doesnt matter because rape is about power not necessarily physical attraction. Back in the day the social “power gap” between white males and black females was MUCH greater than it is today. Back then it was used more as a way to show black women “their place”. Now that the “power gap” isnt as large and the idea of black women being at the very bottom is starting to disappear (although we do see it manifest in some areas) factored with the numbers it is obvious why there are not many white on black rapes.

    Like


  84. on Thu Mar 11th 2010 at 23:22:48 voice of reason

    i agree with what RR said earlier about black feminists. unfortunately, the method of radical feminism (regardless of color) is more about shaming and oppressing men than it is about empowering or motivating women. that also seems to be the method towards achieving racial equality now days – instead of boosting minorities, they focus on bringing down the white man. why else do they need to constantly remind white men of their disgraceful past, what do women or minorities gain from that?

    Like


  85. “or had to bring the sweaty funky shirt of their black lover slave to the first nights of sex with their new white wives just to relax (kind of strange to me ,like an academic generalisation”

    i missed paraphrased that, he does say that may be a morbid example , and not even true but it represents the shadow of slavery in the past on the pysche if Brazilians

    Like


  86. on Thu Mar 11th 2010 at 23:42:39 voice of reason

    high schools, universities, left-wing intellectuals, the media, celebrities, and politicians pound extreme political-correctness into the minds of all people throughout their entire lives: white man=bad. the result is that non-whites become increasingly angry, blameful, and suspicious of white men, while white men become increasingly withdrawn and self-conscious to the point where avoidance is the only answer. the life-long effect this has on the psyche of white men is only now starting to be looked at, especially in the education system. the ‘failure to launch’ of otherwise intelligent, able-bodied, law abiding white boys from supportive, well-to-do families is growing at an epidemic rate. The same does not seem to be happening for white girls in the same situations. A similar thing is happening among black males and black females.

    Like


  87. I was surpised by Toure’s comments then after awhile I wasn’t, maybe being on BET for that long has gotten to him. (rolls eyes) Same old shit about black women being unrapeable becasue she’s a Jezebel or made or titanium and wolverine metal and could take it.

    Seriously don’t know why he even brought it up it’s like do these people ever stop and think that this could be really be stupid? The rant has been posted on several different sites and the way some commenters are acting like he is all wise and knowing and unveiled a huge truth is so funny and so sad.

    It the same old crap that has been playing out for time except it’s on a flat screen. It’s in HD and the person may be fresh faced and young, so it looks kind of new but it’s the same crap.

    Like


  88. FG,

    If you will reread my post, you will see that the point I am making is that they do coincide. That’s why the “best” Hispanics are considered White, while the “no-good” Hispanics are considered Black (or indigenous). It’s the same social distancing you see in the US–for example, Black families that tried to “breed the Black out” in order to distance themselves from unmixed Blacks.

    Like


  89. voice of reason says,
    – high schools, universities, left-wing intellectuals, the media, celebrities, and politicians pound extreme political-correctness into the minds of all people throughout their entire lives: white man=bad.

    – i agree with what RR said earlier about black feminists. unfortunately, the method of radical feminism (regardless of color) is more about shaming and oppressing men than it is about empowering or motivating women.

    laromana says,
    voice of reason,
    When I and other BW on this board speak out against ANTI-BW RACISM/HATE and how BW have been/are being hurt by it, we aren’t doing it to be PC, shame WM, or promote radical feminism.

    Like


  90. j, you wrote:

    “What if:”

    What IF? Oh, I see. A hypothetical question. A question about something that is not real. Just your imagination and hope combining to redirect some thinking into a cul-de-sac.

    and:

    What if..this is true for those ‘minorities’ living in the US, including the Native Americans…Are you suggesting that from their perspective they should NOT say so.”

    Frankly, I do not care what they do. We have a free press in this country and they can publish or promote any aspect of their history they desire. No one is standing in the way.

    I only object to fabrications. And there are plenty of fabricated Indian — Native-American — stories.

    You wrote:

    “Just like you who wish to just highlight the ‘good bits’ – mutatis mutandis??”

    Like I said, you can read, write, publish and promote any stories you like. In fact, we have no true personal connection to the past. The interesting part is that you think browbeating people today with tales of historical misdeeds is the chief goal of education.

    We know our forebears did some things right and some things less right and a few things wrong. It’s always that way. I’m still waiting to read about a black nation that is anything but a mess.

    Like


  91. With regard to

    “…The interesting part is that you think browbeating people today with tales of historical misdeeds is the chief goal of education”.

    Even you must concede that from ‘their’ perspective it is not browbeating. Its you from your perspective that views it as thus.

    No??

    Like


  92. I agree with Toure. It is unfortunate that he lives in such a sexually screwed up society. His comments are fundamentally correct: slave women who used sex as a weapon should not be seen as whores. It was a high-risk, high-stakes game they were playing but some of them did indeed win it.

    The belief that sexual relations back in 1800 were ruled by consent – except for slave women – is a charming conceit promoted by people with little to no knowledge of historic gender roles. And, as I’ve said elsewhere, the relative danger in saying “no” in a situation like this does not preculde the possibility of saying “yes” and using that “yes” to manipulate the situation to the best of one’s ability.

    Like


  93. This does not seem to be the essence of Toure’s argument – well at least from the words on this page

    Like


  94. Toure is talking out of his arse.

    Like


  95. j, you wrote:

    “Even you must concede that from ‘their’ perspective it is not browbeating. Its you from your perspective that views it as thus.”

    Nope. No concession. Way too many generations have passed to the continuing indictment of whites to matter in that way.

    The reverberating restatements are pointless exercises. The record is public. The rights and wrongs are well understood. Meanwhile, whites bear no guilt for the distant past.

    A moral obligation to do better may be part of contemporary white sensibilities, but there’s no guilt or desire for penance. Thus, appeasing Indians or blacks by subjecting whites to verbal floggings is a waste of time.

    Like


  96. C’mon No_Slappz, do you seriously expect me to try to answer what you say here?? It looks as if you regressing once again even from your own perspective…

    Oh c’mon J, I love a good laugh!

    i agree with what RR said earlier about black feminists. unfortunately, the method of radical feminism (regardless of color) is more about shaming and oppressing men than it is about empowering or motivating women.

    Uhhuh. The black feminists are talking over! Run!

    instead of boosting minorities, they focus on bringing down the white man.

    Really? But you see, we have nothing better to do with our time! Help us!

    high schools, universities, left-wing intellectuals, the media, celebrities, and politicians pound extreme political-correctness into the minds of all people throughout their entire lives: white man=bad.

    Alrighty then.

    the result is that non-whites become increasingly angry, blameful, and suspicious of white men, while white men become increasingly withdrawn and self-conscious to the point where avoidance is the only answer.

    You’re starting to pi$$ me off! I am going to go and withdraw into myself! Why are those white men looking at me. Why did that white man open the door for me the other day? It’s because of the white man that I missed out on that sale of coach handbags! Avoidance is the only answer! Er, what was the question?

    Frankly, I do not care what they do. We have a free press in this country and they can publish or promote any aspect of their history they desire. No one is standing in the way.
    I only object to fabrications. And there are plenty of fabricated Indian — Native-American — stories.

    Yes, you are an expert on Native Americans? Wonders never cease! Please regale us with your in in depth knowledge of Native Americans!

    The interesting part is that you think browbeating people today with tales of historical misdeeds is the chief goal of education.

    “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but whips and chains excite me! Browbeating! I would never have guessed you were into the S&M scene, slappz! You surprise me constantly!

    I’m still waiting to read about a black nation that is anything but a mess.

    You should compose an opera using that theme! I can see it now, at the Met no less! ‘Black Nations are a mess’! “Please show me one that isn’t! Of course you’ll have to shorten the name a bit.

    Like


  97. “If you will reread my post, you will see that the point I am making is that they do coincide. That’s why the “best” Hispanics are considered White, while the “no-good” Hispanics are considered Black (or indigenous). It’s the same social distancing you see in the US–for example, Black families that tried to “breed the Black out” in order to distance themselves from unmixed Blacks.”

    You’re conflating race and culture. Hispanic societies do make distinctions based on race and color, as do pretty much all societies. What I’m saying though is that race or color does not determine your ethnicity or cultural orientation there. Puerto Ricans of all colors share (white, black, brown) share the same culture. In the US, though, non-Hispanic whites and non-Hispanic blacks are divided along cultural as well as color lines.

    Like


  98. FG,

    I disagree. Race or color may not determine your nationality (i.e., people have mistaken me for Dominican), but it can determine your “cultural orientation”. Hence (for the umpteenth time) why White Hispanics look down on Non-White Hispanics in Latin America, even though sometimes those considered non-White Hispanics are actually “White Hispanics” by blood.

    Like


  99. Like I said, No_Slappz has a history of taking the truth and twisting it for ideological purposes. His views are more likely to be shared by Steve Sailer, Half Sigma, Kyle Ranier(He might be No_Slappz reincarnated), etc.

    They like to minimize history and talk down on anyone who writes otherwise.

    Kyle’s views on Black women mirrors those guys mentioned above.

    Slavery is horrible and we’re still reaping the repucussions of that terrible legacy.

    La Reyna

    Like


  100. “I disagree. Race or color may not determine your nationality (i.e., people have mistaken me for Dominican), but it can determine your “cultural orientation”. Hence (for the umpteenth time) why White Hispanics look down on Non-White Hispanics in Latin America, even though sometimes those considered non-White Hispanics are actually “White Hispanics” by blood.”

    It’s possible to look down on someone who has the same culture as you. From what I understand, that’s the case in Latin America.

    You’re right though that racial discrimination is almost always based on phenotype rather than actual ancestry, though the two are closely connected in non-mixed populations.

    Like


  101. If nothing else, it was a severe abuse of power. I don’t think we should belittle their situation because we weren’t in it, and can hardly imagine what they were feeling and experiencing.

    That said, I don’t know if I would categorize it as “rape”, in all cases. I think some of those same women would disagree with that. Also, some (a very few) of them were freed and stayed with their former masters as concubines. Also, some were free women already, not all black women in the South were slaves. So, it’s a difficult situation to rubber-stamp. But it was messed-up and screwed-up all-around.

    Like


  102. If nothing else, it was a severe abuse of power. I don’t think we should belittle their situation because we weren’t in it, and can hardly imagine what they were feeling and experiencing.

    I agree, on both accounts. And yet this is precisely what the “all sex during slavery was rape” crowd is doing, isn’t it?

    I think it is hard for people to realize that very few women during that period were “free” to consent to sexual relations. Marriage, for example, meant that the husband had the right to have sex with the wife independent of consent. Wives also couldn’t legally say “no”. now, of course the master-slave relationship is different from the husband-wife relationship, but not by much. Wives had no independent citizenship rights, they couldn’t vote, they were legally the charges of their fathers until marriage and of their husbands afterwards. They couldn’t say “no” to sex without risking brutality. Brutality against them was basically legal…

    In short, women in general were far removed from anything which we would understand, today, to be the basis of “consensual sexual rights”.

    Like


  103. It’s possible to look down on someone who has the same culture as you. From what I understand, that’s the case in Latin America.

    You understand wrong, for three reasons.

    “Latin America” is a tremendously complicated place and there is no one thing that holds true across its length and breadth.

    A country like Brazil – where I live – has easily as many “cultures” – plural – as the U.S. and white supremacists from, say, São Paulo certainly don’t see black activists from Bahia as sharing the “same culture”.

    Finally, “culture” itself isn’t something you HAVE, like a possession, it’s something you use or understand, like a language.

    Like


  104. on Fri Mar 12th 2010 at 02:50:46 Patricia Kayden

    Truth B. Told
    “Multiple Ad hominem attacks on RR = RR hit a nerve mostly speaking the truth”

    Yes and when Black men were lynched they also deserved it.

    Since Black men can now say that Black women wanted to be raped during slavery (and beyond), then I can say that Black men wanted to be lynched during slavery and beyond.

    And I can also say that Black men deserve to be incarcerated at higher rates and deserve all the bad press they get. THEY DESERVE EVERY BIT OF IT.

    Like


  105. ““Latin America” is a tremendously complicated place and there is no one thing that holds true across its length and breadth.”

    Ah, but the key to understanding is often generalization.

    “A country like Brazil – where I live – has easily as many “cultures” – plural – as the U.S. and white supremacists from, say, São Paulo certainly don’t see black activists from Bahia as sharing the “same culture”.”

    But are the whites and blacks in Bahia as culturally distant from each other as the whites and blacks in any given American metropolitan area?

    “Finally, “culture” itself isn’t something you HAVE, like a possession, it’s something you use or understand, like a language.”

    Not sure if I understand the distinction. I would regard language as a possession.

    Like


  106. Patricia:

    I got a better one. If Toure ever finds himself in prison we can tell him:

    “Many, many, many men are raped in prison. But surely a few of em are loved and surely some… …Some are cunning and brilliant enough to use their bodies to gain liberation thus fooling their rapists. Of course most are raped, we know that, but some are sharp enough to trade that good-good for status or liberation. They are absolutely not “ho’s.” They’re sexually heroic. They’re self-liberating by any means necessary.”

    Like


  107. Abagond,

    I think that statement would more likely to be true in prison.

    I depends upon what you value in survival.

    Like


  108. Yes and when Black men were lynched they also deserved it.

    Since Black men can now say that Black women wanted to be raped during slavery (and beyond), then I can say that Black men wanted to be lynched during slavery and beyond.

    And I can also say that Black men deserve to be incarcerated at higher rates and deserve all the bad press they get. THEY DESERVE EVERY BIT OF IT.

    “Many, many, many men are raped in prison. But surely a few of em are loved and surely some… …Some are cunning and brilliant enough to use their bodies to gain liberation thus fooling their rapists. Of course most are raped, we know that, but some are sharp enough to trade that good-good for status or liberation. They are absolutely not “ho’s.” They’re sexually heroic. They’re self-liberating by any means necessary.”

    Cosign.

    But, honestly, this is more than a little disturbing. I remember when the commenter L. was making derogatory comments about black men in another post. And how so many black women were quick to jump on her and defend black men. Here in this post, what are the black men doing? Rationalizing the mistreatment of black women during slavery? Excuse my language, but this is pure f*ckery.

    Like


  109. You are very close to a tautology here, but from your perspective I doubt if it would allow you to say it here he he he

    j, you wrote:

    “Even you must concede that from ‘their’ perspective it is NOT BROWBEATING. Its you from your perspective that views it as thus.”

    =

    Nope. No concession…

    =

    “A moral obligation to do better may be part of contemporary white sensibilities…”

    Like


  110. FG sez:

    Ah, but the key to understanding is often generalization.

    Yes, when the generalization is a good generalization, backed up by adequate data. This one you’re making about Latin America is really neither.

    But are the whites and blacks in Bahia as culturally distant from each other as the whites and blacks in any given American metropolitan area?

    The CLASSES certainly are. And richer = lighter in Bahia.

    Not sure if I understand the distinction. I would regard language as a possession.

    Oh, really? Can I steal your language from you? Can you point it out to me? It’s an ABILITY, FG, not a possession.

    Like


  111. Abagond sez:

    “Many, many, many men are raped in prison. But surely a few of em are loved and surely some… …Some are cunning and brilliant enough to use their bodies to gain liberation thus fooling their rapists. Of course most are raped, we know that, but some are sharp enough to trade that good-good for status or liberation. They are absolutely not “ho’s.” They’re sexually heroic. They’re self-liberating by any means necessary.”

    And you find this to be an outrageous statement? Why, exactly?

    Rationalizing the mistreatment of black women during slavery?

    How, exactly, is this rationalizing the mistreatment of black women? I don’t see Toure saying that this was OK and good.

    Like


  112. By the way, if a prisoner COULD trade sex for freedom – even if it was a 1 in 100 shot, I’m sure many of them would try. And yes, I think such efforts would be heroic.

    Like


  113. But, honestly, this is more than a little disturbing. I remember when the commenter L. was making derogatory comments about black men in another post. And how so many black women were quick to jump on her and defend black men. Here in this post, what are the black men doing? Rationalizing the mistreatment of black women during slavery? Excuse my language, but this is pure f*ckery.

    Personally I think most of the commentators here have been ‘White’ as with many of the other contentious posts. I am afraid I don’t know the post that you are alluding to.

    If I am wrong and I have been accused of being wrong in one of my guesses (as well as being called thus) then they are not euro-centred. Here think BSWM caricature.

    Personally I think Malcolm X was probably right in his analysis that he could identify a ‘White speaker’ in a room without looking .

    Moving it further and keeping it in line with this post. I think you can tell a male poster from a female poster with regard to what is referrred to as ‘Womens’ issues’

    Like


  114. Correction…Paragraph 3 should read

    If I am wrong and I have been accused of being wrong in one of my guesses (as well as being called thus) then they ARE euro-centred. Here think BSWM caricature.

    Like


  115. How, exactly, is this rationalizing the mistreatment of black women? I don’t see Toure saying that this was OK and good.

    I was talking about the comments to this post.

    Like


  116. J, pretty sure Truth B. Told is black. He’ll tell you that he is if he comes back here and I know that he is by his comments on this blog. And he one hundred percent backed RR’s statements, who also claims to be black (although I very much doubt that).

    Like


  117. ha ha I agree with you on RR

    I think I agree with your assessment on Truth B. Told but because he has not posted enough, I still cannot give you my conclusive opinion.

    As for people claiming to being Black on here. As they might say over here ‘Don’t watch that!!’

    I have serious doubts, either that or some individuals have a lot of serious issues to contend with on matters pertaining to ‘race consciousness’

    Like


  118. J,

    You know that every Black person does not agonize about Blackness as you do. There are actually some people who have been there and done that and nothing left to prove. They also know how much and where they can effect change.

    Like


  119. I did not call your name…but what is interesting is that you feel the need to come forward to defend your position?

    Like


  120. Whoa! Can we turn down the hysteria? My comments were in no way disparaging of black women. My belief that many black women willingly had sex with white men during slavery (and after) is NOT a moral judgment. Black slave women did what they believed to be in their best interests, like any other group of women would. How recognizing that black women are like other women, with the same desires and preferences, can be construed as degrading to black women is beyond me. A slave woman being attracted to her master is just beyond the pale, I guess. No, it couldn’t possibly have happened. Everyone knows black women aren’t attracted to powerful men like other women. No! Black women are just so different than other women that the question is ridiculous. I hereby stand corrected. Henceforth, let it be known that black women are different and are not drawn to the qualities in men that other women the world over are drawn to.

    What is disturbing to me is the tendency of many black people to view whites, especially white males, as omnipotent. They aren’t omnipotent now, and they weren’t omnipotent then. We seem to have a major vested interest in believing in the diabolical evil of the white man. This strikes me as self-defeating. If white men are as evil, corrupted and dissolute as many of us believe them to be, then why are we always asking them for stuff? Why are we asking them to be more sensitive? Why are we asking them to be more inclusive? It is as if we believe in the absolute evil and absolute goodness of the white man simultaneously. I understand that we have been through a lot, but do we really NEED to exaggerate the wrongs perpetrated against us?

    Nothing I have said is intended to demean or degrade the struggle of blacks against the system of oppression that was slavery. I just think that we have an investment in our own oppression that impedes our progress. We have a tendency to wallow in our supposed degradation. I’m just striving for clarity here. Even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that sex between master and slave was rape (debatable, but let’s assume this). What percentage of black women were raped? Were they all raped? Were 50% raped? Where 1% raped? Was rape an infrequent occurrence? We really have no way of knowing. This is my point. We don’t know, so why do we assume the worse? Some black women were definitely raped. This we know. This is all we know.

    lamorena,

    You obviously feel very strongly about this issue. If I have offended you, I apologize. But I nonetheless have to take issue with some of your statements. You wrote:

    It is ABSURD for you to “SPECULATE” as to WHY BW
    “had sex” with their WHITE SLAVE MASTERS.

    Why is it absurd to speculate? Is this issue sacrosanct? Are you a racial fundamentalist?

    The FACT that they were FORCED to have sex with their WHITE SLAVE MASTERS makes it RAPE.

    This is speculation on your part. Some black women were unquestionably forced. It is debatable as to whether ALL sex between master and slave was coercive. You are basically saying that it was impossible for a master to be attracted to a slave and attempt to seduce her and for a slave to be amenable to being seduced by the most powerful man in the vicinity. I don’t buy it!

    An OBVIOUS reason why the rape of BW by WM isn’t as common today as it was during the days of slavery/Jim Crow is because BW are not SLAVES and now have certain RIGHTS that allow them to protect themselves from this type of abuse.

    I don’t know about that. My black feminist friends tell me that black women are still overwhelmingly vulnerable. I read an article today that stated that the net worth of the average middleclass black woman was $5. I think that a white guy who was so inclined could get away with raping a lot of black women. This, for the most part, just doesn’t happen.

    This made it possible for WHITE SLAVE MASTERS (ANY WM) to rape, sexually abuse, and commit any sex crime against Black women/girls WITHOUT CONSEQUENCE.

    Just because a particular crime was possible does not mean it actually happened frequently. Again, this is not to say that unspeakable sexual crimes were not committed by some white men against some black slaves. It is the degree to which said crimes were committed that I am questioning.

    Truth B. Told,

    You wrote:

    B) these are the only women in history to be subjected to mass rape.

    I have to disagree with you here. My contention is that black women were NOT subject to mass rape.
    Was there some interracial rape? Yes. Was it widespread and systematic like in Bosnia, Nanking, Berlin (during the Russian invasion) or Dar Fur.? NO! The question I want to know is HOW widespread was slave rape? I need percentages.

    Don’t get me wrong. I like kicking the white man as much as the next guy. I just don’t think we should make a national sport out of it. It is as if we are witnessing a long running Tom Wolfe novel. And I used to reeeallly hate Tom Wolfe! “Bonfire of the Vanities” is looking real good right now. Tom Wolfe is a genius. Who will be the next “Great White Defendant”?

    Jasmin,

    You wrote:
    And I’ve never heard of Black men feeling cowardly because of female slave rape

    It is not a question of black men feeling cowardly. The accusation was that black men were cowardly then. I’m guessing that I’m quite a bit older than you are. I lived through the whole “For Colored Girls”, “Color Purple”, “Black Macho and the Myth of the Superwoman” wars. These things were in fact said. And said quite LOUDLY.

    Natasha W,

    You wrote:
    was hoping people would just ignore RR. He’s full of it. And not black — I’d put good money on that.

    You would lose that bet. Big time! And I defy you to produce any evidence by a reputable historian that Willie Lynch existed.

    Here in this post, what are the black men doing? Rationalizing the mistreatment of black women during slavery?

    This is asinine. No one (and I will defy you to show even one quote) is rationalizing rape. The problem is that you, like many black women, seem to view black women as being superhuman. That somehow black women have different desires and preferences than other groups of women. This is an immature view. Please grow up.

    Y,

    You wrote:

    wrt current white on black rape “Because whites out number blacks 5 to 1. Which is easier a white man stumbling upon a black woman to rape or a white woman?”

    A white man wouldn’t have to exactly stumble upon a black woman. Black women are all over the place. Also, black men have no trouble raping white women, despite the fact black men are less likely to encounter a white woman than a white man is to encounter a black woman.

    Like


  121. RR, please. Just quit. While you are so direly behind.

    Like


  122. Natasha W,

    Show me how I’m behind. I don’t believe it. Don’t be lazy. Did I engage in a stereotype? Sorry. But prove me wrong.

    Like


  123. “If white men are as evil, corrupted and dissolute as many of us believe them to be, then why are we always asking them for stuff? Why are we asking them to be more sensitive? Why are we asking them to be more inclusive? It is as if we believe in the absolute evil and absolute goodness of the white man simultaneously.”

    LOL. That’s actually something I’ve noticed about the comments left on this blog. I think many respondents need a more moderate view of white people that avoids both hatred and awe.

    Like


  124. J,
    Just chalk it up to intuition, because you never want direct confrontation.

    Like


  125. on Fri Mar 12th 2010 at 05:44:06 voice of reason

    Hernieth, I think you either misread my post or missed my point.

    Now, I’m not saying white men in the post-modern world are facing oppression (in fact I wouldn’t even use the word ‘oppression’) anywhere near what blacks or natives faced, that should be obvious. And I’m not saying that blacks and/or natives are attempting to ‘take back the power’ from white people. Blacks and natives were oppressed physically – by means of violence, and social or legal exclusion. White men still have all the opportunities, in fact more so than most minorities in most parts of America, even today. However, statistics are pointing towards a dark future for white men. That raises some questions.

    I don’t have the actual numbers, but basically white men in north america are increasingly:

    failing/dropping out of high school or university, becoming unemployed, getting divorced or unable to maintain relationships, unable to manage finances or debt, engaging in criminal behavior, getting involved in drugs, alcohol, or gambling, resigning to depression, anxiety, and suicide.

    Most of the white men I know have one or many of the above problems. In fact, white men are listed at the top of most of these categories, and it’s rising. while other groups are improving socially, it appears white men are facing a social decline. Why that is, is up to you decide.

    The theories they present compare why black women seem to be constantly progressing in America, while black men seem to be at a stand still. It doesn’t take much insight to notice more and more black women attending university, completing education, obtaining high profile jobs, holding down the family… I can’t say the same is visible for black men, at least not increasingly.

    Again, the situation is different for white men and black men. In public education, history says : europeans were ruthless, power-hungry, evil conquerers. That is what white boys in school are taught – you’re ancestors were horrible people and you should be ashamed, because you’re white. The situation for black men is equally bad, maybe even worse. The school experience for black men can be summed up in one word: neglect.

    The reason I’m focussing on white men and black men instead of white women and black women is because they seem to be headed in opposite directions. Again, it’s important to realize that white males/females and black males/females are not in the same situation, that should be a given . I am not trying to be sexist or racist (as best I can). I just think it is interesting to observe where the statistics are pointing, and why that is.

    I will be following up this post soon, which should hopefully add some more clarity to this subject.

    Like


  126. R.R.,
    You continue making ASININE,UNSUBSTANTIATED “claims” as to why YOU THINK BW “had sex” with their WHITE SLAVE MASTERS. It is a FACT that African Americans (and other Blacks in the Americas) can trace their ancestry to relatives who were born from NON-CONSENSUAL sexual relationships (ie. RAPE) between WHITE SLAVE MASTERS and BW/Black girls.

    As has been stated before, these BW/Black girls did NOT have the OPTION to REJECT sex from their WHITE SLAVE MASTERS which means they were RAPED. There is NO REASON for you to keep “SPECULATING” about the WHITE SLAVE MASTER/BW-Black girl “relationships” (and the prevalence of this DISGUSTING behavior) other than to CONDEMN them for the DEGRADING/DEMEANING abuses that they were.

    BW have every RIGHT to CHALLENGE ANYONE who seeks to DISMISS/MINIMIZE the horrific way BW were treated during slavery/Jim Crow without being accused of “not understanding the meaning of rape” or WM bashing.

    Like


  127. seriously, it irritates me to no end when people try to change history. Don’t tell us about our own history and our own personal ancestry. if those slave master loved their slave women so much why didn’t more of them free them? better yet why didn’t more of them free their own flesh and blood instead of making them slaves?? that’s not love.

    Like


  128. on Fri Mar 12th 2010 at 06:21:55 voice of reason

    RR said: “I just think that we have an investment in our own oppression that impedes our progress. We have a tendency to wallow in our supposed degradation.”

    I strongly agree with this statement. Even though this statement is meant with the best intentions, that is, a desire for blacks to overcome their oppressive past and rise above, it is impossible for a white man to make this observation withouth being labelled racist.

    Like I tried to say before: the media, imposed curriculum in schools, the constant reminders of whites oppressing blacks through slavery and segregation, is really just another way of keeping blacks focussed on the past instead of the present. You can’t change the past, but you can change the future – maybe they don’t want you to focus on the future?

    I am tired of hearing the same historical regurgitations of white glory and black misery. Not because I am white, but because they are telling me something I already know. I am much more interested in studies that are more relevant to today’s issues and have something to say about the future.

    Like


  129. “The theories they present compare why black women seem to be constantly progressing in America, while black men seem to be at a stand still.”

    are you aware that the incarceration rates of bw are higher than that of white men??? progressing huh??

    Like


  130. Don’t know who is “impeding their own progress.” Black women are making leaps and bounds in education and in the workforce. Black men aren’t… but you can ask RR about that. Since he is a black male and knows so much about what black people need to do succeed. 🙂

    Like


  131. on Fri Mar 12th 2010 at 06:28:06 voice of reason

    i said ‘progressing’ which means improving. the current rates may be higher, but the CHANGE in the rates paints a different picture. the situation for black women in the social world is on the uprise, where for white men it is declining.

    Like


  132. on Fri Mar 12th 2010 at 06:29:29 voice of reason

    Peanut, what Natasha said, is what I was saying before.

    Like


  133. why do you feel for wm its declining. i don’t agree w/ that at all. by and large wm are still better off than majority of people just by the mere fact that they have a connection to the western world and access to higher education at all. the HIV epidemic is hitting bw the hardest. bw are more likely to be sexually abused than any other group next to native american women i believe.

    don’t worry wm are still on top of the heap.

    Like


  134. ofcourse things are slowly improving for bw but does it surpass white men i don’t think so…

    Like


  135. although i do know wm are more likely to commit suicide i think than any other group, which says to me that maybe the pressure to meet society’s expectations causes alot of pressure for white men too…but at the same time they still benefit from that privilege that they created vastly

    Like


  136. on Fri Mar 12th 2010 at 07:11:51 voice of reason

    the fact that white men are more likely to become depressed and/or commit suicide is only one of the major social factors that are largely ignored. almost all acts of mass random violence are committed by white men between the ages of 18-35 roughly. this includes serial killers, school shootings, acts of terrorism against the USA (contrary to what you may think, more acts of terrorism have been committed by white, american, males than muslims from the middle east), and random public violence – ie. opening gunfire in a mall or on the street. obviously these cases receive huge media coverage but rarely if ever is the connection made that almost ALL (I mean like 95%) over the past 20 years are committed by white males.

    Like


  137. on Fri Mar 12th 2010 at 07:37:17 voice of reason

    Prior to the 1950s/60s, these types of crimes did not exist – at least not as frequent and not on the same level as they do now. It has been happening for a while, but only recently are people starting to study the decline of the white male. Again, the reasons are up for speculation.

    I am not sticking up for the white men of the past, but I will say that I am sticking up for the white men of today. I think white men today are unfairly forced to live with the burden of their ancestors. Whether they were actual ancestors of slave owners, or not, doesn’t seem to matter. The textbook says: as long as they were white. I say this, not because I am promoting racism, not because I believe in white supremacy, or the kkk. In fact, I believe in quite the opposite.

    Like


  138. on Fri Mar 12th 2010 at 12:36:06 Patricia Kayden

    “abagond
    Patricia:

    I got a better one. If Toure ever finds himself in prison we can tell him:

    “Many, many, many men are raped in prison. But surely a few of em are loved and surely some… …Some are cunning and brilliant enough to use their bodies to gain liberation thus fooling their rapists. Of course most are raped, we know that, but some are sharp enough to trade that good-good for status or liberation. They are absolutely not “ho’s.” They’re sexually heroic. They’re self-liberating by any means necessary.””

    Well Abagond,

    I am glad to see where you stand in this discussion.

    It is very interesting to see how some Black men view the horrific rape that Black women were subjected to under slavery and Jim Crow.

    I know that you are of Caribbean descent and wonder if African American men hate “their” women so much that they are now justifying and excusing the bodily harm that African American women were subjected to under slavery. That’s what I am noticing — that African American men are very loud and vocal about how they feel about “their” women.

    That’s why I find it puzzling whenever I hear AA women loudly proclaiming “nothing but a Black man” vis-a-vis dating/marriage. African American men are very loud and proud about putting AA women down.

    What happened to Black women during slavery in regards to the systematic rape that took place for hundreds of years is not up for debate. It’s a fact. It’s sickening how some Black men try to rationalize something that can never be justified.

    JUST SICKENING.

    Like


  139. I like this observation and comment…

    “I think some Black men (NOT ABOGOND THOUGH) have made it clear that it is a them (Black men) against us (Black women).”

    … Anybody else..apart from Abagond he he he he he

    On a serious note all I would say is that the Black female has to be aware of not only Black men but most if not ‘all males’ if we being realistic.

    And then after that,then they will have to analyse their standing within the society with regard to class (lower, middle or underclass)…

    There are a numbers of different processes that are merging, conflating and manifesting itself in a variety of ways in society.

    The difficulty is to be able to understand them all and be honest to face up to the implications of ‘the truths’ of those processes…

    Like


  140. ha ha

    And to show you how difficult these processes are I omitted the ‘White women’ and also other ‘women of colour’??

    Since obviously not all groups of women are at the same levels along the ‘racial line’

    Like


  141. This is asinine. No one (and I will defy you to show even one quote) is rationalizing rape. The problem is that you, like many black women, seem to view black women as being superhuman. That somehow black women have different desires and preferences than other groups of women. This is an immature view. Please grow up.

    I am beginnning to believe there is no point even to continue trying to discuss anything with these women. They clearly are A) not reading what is being written or B) reading what they want to see.

    Most of the content of my post was ignored and RR was attacked because a nasty habit that was called out: treating history as “social currency”, as something to get what you want. My statements was not a reflection of Slave women and what they had to endure, it was a reflection of the charlatans today who use and abuse that history for their selfish gain. Can I be any clearer than that?

    It doesn’t matter anyway, I am done discussing things. I have heard of the Wall of Silence and maybe it is best if I just put up one myself. I have been in these discussions for 2 years and it is the same crap. You will settle for nothing less than being the ultimate victim and having your behinds’ kissed by everyone, especially Black men. All logic and consistency be damned.

    No more.

    Like


  142. With regard to:

    My statements was not a reflection of Slave women and what they had to endure, it was a reflection of the charlatans today who use and abuse that history for their selfish gain

    Can I say that I thought this is what you were trying to say.

    If you do not mind me saying – and please feel free to correct me here – I think your position is that Black Feminist
    following the lead of the White Feminists are doing their best to ‘hate’ the Black male in the U.S per se rather than you believed the Black women were complicit in whatever happened to them during slavery

    This is what I was referring to about the number of different processes…

    Like


  143. I really think it would be better for Black women, if Black bloggers discussed rape in the 21th century. No one can undo the past, but they can certainly try to change future attitudes about rape. I have read some philosophies that if became mainstream would severely effect the way rape is prosecuted.

    Like


  144. …However, and still on the matter of conflation etc the issues of rape of during slavery I think is essentially a ‘whole Black race issue’, so it is important to discuss in its own right.

    As for rape in the 21 century ie post-slavery that can also be assessed from its own dynamics and even compared to the past if needs be..

    Personally both need to be discussed since they reveal so many things.

    Like


  145. J,

    I don’t think rape defines Black people as I said in my first comment on this post. Nor did it define the Black women slave or her male partner. Black men often raised the rape offspring as their own.They gave dignity to that child even through the indignities of their own.
    There were no rape stories passed down, for no woman sees that as an asset.

    I also gave instances where Black people are mixed not because of rape.

    Like


  146. Peanut sez:
    seriously, it irritates me to no end when people try to change history. Don’t tell us about our own history and our own personal ancestry.

    Peanut, I think you don’t have a grasp on what bhistory actually is. It’s not anyone group’s personal possession.

    This “rape during slavery” topic always raises peoples hackles precisely becausse it’s NOT about history, but about what you feel are today’s issues.

    The claim has been made above that women slaves couldn’t say “no” to sex annd that this ipso facto transformed all sex under slavery into rape. The fact of the matter is, not being able to say “no” to sex was a constituitive part of male and female relations all across the board back then. Women were not allowed to say “no” in marriage. If they were raped and it was found out, THEY were the ones who were “ruined”. There was nothing like today’s understanding of “free and equal” sexuality anywhere back then.

    To say this is not to defend rape or slavery and only a fool would think that was the case. To say this is to attempt to give people an understanding of the real restraints slave and women in general were operating under back in the day. Sexual freedom wasn’t an option for ANY woman, so to presume that this was the first thing on slave women’s minds is nuts.

    What can clearly see from the slave narratives and what little writing has come across from those time what slaves main concerns were: freedom and keeping the family together. Those are the two things that come across clearly time and again when you read reports about those times. Within that context, sexual relationships with whites – and note that not all whites were “massas”, either – could indeed provide some leverage. They could also RADICALLY backfire.

    Every person who’s actually delved into the historical archives on this topic in a systematic fashion has come to this conclusion – black or white. Slavery was an incredibly unjust system. Within that system, sex could provide a weapon. It was certainly not the weapon of choice of most black women – or men – but it did get used and ocasionally used to good effect.

    Furthermore, recent research indicates that there seems to have been a lot more WW/BM sex going on in slavery times than people have hitherto been willing to admit. I’m reading an excellent book on this topic right now (I’ll post the title and info as soon as I get home).

    So how about it people? If slavery takes away ALL choice when it comes to sex and thus renders ANY sex between black slaves and whites “rape”, can we thus conclude that black men were also being “raped” by white women?

    If not, why not?

    Like


  147. Thad, why do you have a problem with word “rape”? I don’t know what’s “rape” in your book, but to me, it’s certainly not only the attack on a dark street by a violent stranger. A husband can rape his own wife. If you say “yes” to sex because you don’t want a man to beat you up, that’s rape. If you say “yes” in order to get three meals a day instead of one, it’s rape. Whenever there’s a difference of power you can get a rape situation. Nobody needs to be physically forced into the act or hurt in order for it to be a rape. I am sure you are aware of this. But for some reason you dislike the word. (Then again, this might be a cultural/language thing- maybe I am the one who is not using the right term).

    Also, I must point to another, very harmful myth: rape as a proof of passion. Yes, there is a myth about man raping women because they are simply way too attracted to them. BS. Rape is not about sexual attraction, it’s about power and control.

    On the other hand, I do agree what Thad swrote about history:

    It’s not anyone group’s personal possession. This “rape during slavery” topic always raises peoples hackles precisely becausse it’s NOT about history, but about what you feel are today’s issues.

    History (or archaeology) belong to any group of people. You can not own history. You simply can’t. Yes, I know history is very important in building your personal or collective identity and integrity. however, it is wrong to use it in a way of “who owns what”.

    Also, using “us vs them” is necessary in building your identity. However, it’s not the best line of thinking when it comes to discussion. “We must do this…”, “Our women were raped”, “You people did horrible things”, etc. Not the best way to go, imo.

    Like


  148. Mira, we were talking the history of rape over at a Woman’s Day conference this week. The problem with the word is that it’s become a value-laden buzz-concept which gets slapped on any kind of sex that doesn’t match up to the modern ideal of “good sex”.

    If one were to take seriously the notion that rape is ipso facto any kind of sex in which one person would be severely punished for saying “no”, then one must logically come to the conclusion that almost all sex, as historically construed, must be considered rape.

    Now let’s look at that first before we go any farther. Do you agree with the view that sex must be rape if it’s carried out under situations of extreme power imbalance? If not, why not?

    Like


  149. My statements was not a reflection of Slave women and what they had to endure, it was a reflection of the charlatans today who use and abuse that history for their selfish gain. Can I be any clearer than that?

    Oh, now. Let’s not go blatantly lying. Let’s review some of your statements, since you seem to be having a fit of amnesia.

    You said:

    I for one am getting tired of listening to some of these women carry on as if A) they were there personally B) these are the only women in history to be subjected to mass rape.

    So we are supposed to just not discuss the issue because other women have been raped as well? What else could that second point be, but a rationalization (i.e. excusing away) of the mistreatment of black women during slavery?

    When/if you have a daughter, and she asks you about the rape of black women during slavery, tell her that she doesn’t need to discuss it because she wasn’t “personally there” and black women weren’t “the only women in history to be subjected to mass rape.”… Are you reading how utterly obtuse you sound? Or is just me?

    And some more:

    I mean how often do you hear Native American women who were also raped during the same time period use it as a “weapon” against Native men?

    How often do you hear Jewish women using the holocaust and unrelenting abuse as a weapon against Jewish men?

    In WWII Japanese soldiers sexually abused the women of the Asian countries it conquered and turned them into “comfort girls”. Don’t hear to many Asian women throwing it in the face of Asian men.

    News flash: Black women were not the ones who brought up this issue. Toure, a black man, did. Black women are simply commenting on his statements. And never once did the black women here say that the rape of black women during slavery was the fault of black men. That you think that black women are “throwing this in the face” of black men speaks volumes to your insecurity.

    RR and yourself have created a strawman and proceeded to knock it down with all your might. Yes, turn this into an issue of black women “once again” disparaging black men. Because it’s always easier to deflect rather than discuss the matter at hand.

    You will settle for nothing less than being the ultimate victim and having your behinds’ kissed by everyone, especially Black men

    Once again, creating strawmen. Black women are playing the victim and asking to have their behinds kissed by speaking up when someone decides to comment on an issue that plagued their ancestors? Whose really playing the victim here? Methinks, it’s you.

    It doesn’t matter anyway, I am done discussing things.

    Yes, be done. You don’t want to make an even bigger fool of yourself and your fellow black women than you already have.

    Like


  150. To me, rape is non consensual and/or forced sex!

    Mira said:
    “If you say “yes” in order to get three meals a day instead of one, it’s rape.”

    No it isn’t! It’s unethical to do that but it certainly isn’t rape.
    Rape is not optional!

    Frankly, all this talk of “how women have been oppressed fo centuries” is the biggest crock of bulls*** that feminism have said ever!
    Anybody with even half a brain can tell you that.

    Feminism like any other socio-political and socio-economic theory that was a result of the enlightenment age and after it are all full of bull!

    Like


  151. ^To “Truth B. Told (ridiculous)”

    Like


  152. By the way, the idea that rape isabout power and control is also something of a myth – at least in its opposition to sex in general, which is supposedly free of concerns about power and control…?

    Sex is rarely simply about passion or lust. It is often about power and control. So how, exactly, is rape supposedly so different in this respect?

    I would guess that my difficulties with the word “rape” stem from the fact that many people here use it as a rhetorical term without really thinking about what they mean by it. It’s like yelling “nazi”. In fact, one could argue a sort of Godard’s Law () exists regarding rape: “in any online discussion of historical sexuality between men and women grows longer, the probability of someone mentioning rape approaches 1”.

    It’s a word used for hyperbolic and rhetorical effect, Mira, not because the people using it have any clear and effective definition of what it is other than “sex I do not like and which involves power inequalities”.

    Am I wrong? Perhaps. YOU take a shot at defining the word in a way that`s sociologically useful and which isn`t a mishmash of poorly thought-out ideals regarding human sexuality.

    Like


  153. With regard to:

    I don’t think rape defines Black people as I said in my first comment on this post. Nor did it define the Black women slave or her male partner. Black men often raised the rape offspring as their own.They gave dignity to that child even through the indignities of their own.
    There were no rape stories passed down, for no woman sees that as an asset.

    I also gave instances where Black people are mixed not because of rape.

    I think first we need to put down a few markers before we proceed here.

    Black women were raped and abused by the slavemasters
    (male and female) throughout the Americas.

    If you want to discuss ‘coping/survival strategies’ of Black women as a means to survival (includingtheir very lives) in the slave context, then that is a different topic.

    To discuss this issue of rape and abuse is not the same as suggesting:

    “…rape defines Black people…”

    No-one is suggesting this, or more specifically, I am not.

    Furthermore the issue of rape occurred in the cultural context of a White Supremacy society and this is why it is also important to discuss it with regard to the ‘collective’.

    This does not not in anyway mean that Black women today constructing their own ‘her-story’ (history) cannot look at that aspect from a strictly female-centred orientation/perspective.

    Was it not Malcolm X (quoting the Hon Elijah Muhammad) who said “Of All Our Studies, History Is Best Qualified To Reward Our Research”??

    So this aspect of history no matter how unpleasent for some, nor should it be shied away, and this is my point

    Like


  154. ^ Godwin’s Law = reductio ad Hitlerum

    Thad:

    I had to fix your URL. When putting URLs in a comment it is best to cut and paste it directly and make sure no punctuation touches it (like that ^).

    Like


  155. Natasha W.

    When/if you have a daughter, and she asks you about the rape of black women during slavery, tell her that she doesn’t need to discuss it because she wasn’t “personally there” and black women weren’t “the only women in history to be subjected to mass rape.”… Are you reading how utterly obtuse you sound? Or is just me?

    I am curious. Just what would you tell your daughter. What kind of discussion do you have about rape in slavery, that will help her traverse the modern world. Will she recognize the possibility of date rape or understand she can say no. Does she need stories of helplessness or ones where the master was foiled?

    Like


  156. With regard to definition of rape:

    http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1981/3/81.03.06.x.html#c

    This is from a psychological perspective and also taught at Yale….

    Though the issues can become even more complicated if you introduce ‘sexual abuse’ and observe that even animals commit rape.

    Like


  157. What happened to my long comments? I answered Thad’s question. Is it in moderation, or lost? (My Internet connection is bad). There’s not way I could write the whole answer again.

    In summary: I don’t think sex under power imbalance equals rape. However, in many, many cases, it IS the case. Because people usually

    On the other hand, I don’t think rape is only a female (or prison) issue. Men can be raped as well. It has nothing to do with being sexually excited or about sexual pleasure. The lack of sexual pleasure doesn’t mean rape. Similarly, just because someone was sexually aroused doesn’t mean it’s not rape. News flash: it is possible to rape a man. Just because he was physically excited (or even enjoy it) doesn’t make it ok. I bet a 14 year old boy having sex with his adult teacher is having a great time. It doesn’t mean it’s not rape.

    The fact women rarely rape men is not because men are sex-obsessed creatures who always want and enjoy sexual act with any woman, any time. It’s because women are rarely more powerful than men.

    The other possible problem is cultural. Men are raised to be “sex animals”. They are told being a man means desiring sex all the time, and that it’s a natural thing. They were raised to always be in the mood for sex or say no (or else it means they’re not manly enough).

    So, dear male humans on this board, I am thinking about you as well. 🙂 I am not a hard core feminist or whatever you call it, and I am not trying to use rape as an excuse to talk bad about men.

    Like


  158. Natasha W

    Very well said, I agree completely, that needed to be said to that person!

    Like


  159. I wanted to say: Because people usually use power and control they have.

    Like


  160. Mira:

    Nothing is currently in moderation. It must be your connection.

    Like


  161. Mira sez:
    I bet a 14 year old boy having sex with his adult teacher is having a great time. It doesn’t mean it’s not rape.

    Give mee some sort of meaningful definition of rape which takes in that situation, please.

    Again, Mira, it seems here that your definition of rape is “Sex I don’t like in which there are power inequalities”.

    Not all forms of bad sex are rape, Mira.

    Furthermore, I know of no study that shows that power – or lack of it – means more or less chance of conducting rape.

    Historically, however, people who have a lot of power don’t need rape because they have much more subtle and effective means of coercing sex.

    Like


  162. BtW, there are some really bad presumptions in that Yale study J linked us to.

    1) “rape is a crime that is increasing”. Not according to the last Criminal Justice stats I’ve seen it isn’t.

    2) “Rape isn’t about sex, but power.” OK, fine. But when has SEX ever been simply about sex?

    3) The two studies they seem to base their arguments around are not adequate samples and, indeed, seem to contradict each other on several points.

    Furthermore, this study presumes rape is out-and-out sexual attack, not coercion based on social-structural power advantage, as almost all of the commentators above seem to conceive of it.

    Like


  163. Not all forms of bad sex are rape, Mira.

    Of course not. That’s the part that got lost. That is precisely what I said: sexual pleasure (or lack thereof) doesn’t categorize a rape. While most of the rapes are physically not pleasant experiences, that’s not what make them rapes.

    A teacher having sex with her student is raping him because he is a) a child- sexually mature perhaps, but not emotionally. And b) because she has more power and control than him. She is using her power on the boy. She doesn’t need to beat him up and feed him viagra in order it to be a rape.

    Now, let’s think about this. What do sex exist? It exists because mixing genes has proved to be the best way of reproducing (it ensures DNA mixing, which is a good thing). However, that means creatures can’t reproduce on their own and need a mate. That’s why sexual urge exist- we must be drawn to an individual of an opposite gender, and the urge must be strong. Very strong. So, that’s why we have our urges and sexual desires. Nothing mystical about it.

    The culture is the one that prevents us from having sex any time nature makes us want to do it. Culture is the one that says- don’t have sex with your parents or siblings. Culture is the one that says men have stronger urges than women. Culture is the one that says sex is only for marriage. Culture is the one that says having sex with someone against their will is bad. And why is it bad? It’s not bad

    I am not sex is all about physical pleasure or making babies. In humans at least, it can create a strong emotional bond. But because sex is powerful, it can also used for creating different sorts of bonds, none of which is used for reproducing or making love bond with another human being (which is also helpful for raising babies if you think about it).

    Maybe my take on term “rape” is weird, I don’t know. But yes, I do believe there are some words that carry way too much emotional weight and are often not evaluated or questioned. People just hear/read the word, become angry, and do not even stop to think about it.

    That’s why these words are good to use in propaganda. Nobody really thinks about them, they are considered to be so “dirty” that nobody questions them (also, questioning their meaning is considered a very bad taste). Some of those words are: rape, genocide, racism, most of the race slurs, communism.

    Like


  164. voice of reason says,
    voice of reason
    RR said: “I just think that we have an investment in our own oppression that impedes our progress. We have a tendency to wallow in our supposed degradation.”

    I strongly agree with this statement. Even though this statement is meant with the best intentions, that is, a desire for blacks to overcome their oppressive past and rise above, it is impossible for a white man to make this observation withouth being labelled racist.

    Like I tried to say before: the media, imposed curriculum in schools, the constant reminders of whites oppressing blacks through slavery and segregation, is really just another way of keeping blacks focussed on the past instead of the present. You can’t change the past, but you can change the future – maybe they don’t want you to focus on the future?

    I am tired of hearing the same historical regurgitations of white glory and black misery. Not because I am white, but because they are telling me something I already know. I am much more interested in studies that are more relevant to today’s issues and have something to say about the future.

    laromana says,
    TRUTHFULLY discussing the history of WHITE SLAVE MASTER/ BW-BG RAPE to make sure that ANTI-BW LIES aren’t perpetuated doesn’t equate to “historical regurgitations of white glory and black misery” or a way of “keeping blacks focused on the past instead of the present”. STOP making the discussion of this topic about YOU PERSONALLY because neither I (nor any of the BW who are posting) are talking about YOU.

    Instead, why dont’ you (and others who are MISSING the MAIN POINT of this discussion) join BW in CONDEMNING the DISGUSTING/DEMEANING/ABUSIVE acts that were perpetrated agaisnt BW during slavery/Jim Crow and that contribute to PRESENT DAY ANTI-BW LIES/MYTHS/STEREOTYPES/TRASHING of the HUMANITY/DIGNITY/FEMININITY of BW.

    Like


  165. Btw, I think Vindicator hit on the best definition for rape presented here so far: “rape is not optional”.

    Like


  166. A teacher having sex with her student is raping him because he is a) a child- sexually mature perhaps, but not emotionally. And b) because she has more power and control than him. She is using her power on the boy.

    So essentially you feel that any kind of “empowered sex” is ipso facto rape? Because power imbalances between men and women are notoriously part of the sexual game, mira. You could just as well argue that a man`s wealth, for example, is likewise a form of power and control. Many feminist separatists have in fact argued precisely this.

    So if you believe that unequal power = rape, then how do you avoid qualifying something like 90% of human historical sexual activity as rape?

    As for the kid’s age, no that doesn’t make it rape, not by any definition of the term known to psychology. It could indicate other forms of abuse, yes. but not all sexually-based abuse is rape, Mira. Rape isn’t a magic box into which all forms of sex which we are uncomfortable with should be tossed.

    In humans at least, it can create a strong emotional bond. But because sex is powerful, it can also used for creating different sorts of bonds, none of which is used for reproducing or making love bond with another human being (which is also helpful for raising babies if you think about it).

    Now this I agree withh 100% and it`s supported by my work with prostitutes and johns. It is very difficult for a person to be completely blasé with regards to someone that they have had sex with.

    Maybe my take on term “rape” is weird, I don’t know.

    I don’t think it’s wierd. I think it’s imprecise and rehtorical. Then again, I am interested in sociologically charting out forms of “bad sex”, what they are and how they work. Most people here, including our esteemed moderator, finds that uncomfortable and mistakes their uncomfort with bthe topic for my supposed defense of said “bad sex”.

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: what most often went on with regards to sexual relations during slavery was actually far more evil than the word “rape” can take into consideration. I’ve made this point on several occasions here, in detail, and it’s been received with thundering silence.

    Rape, as a term, just doesn’t cover what went on, but it’s a term most people here will use because they are comfortable with it as rhetoric and are uncomfortable with objectively discussing sex, violence and power in general. That mix raises all sorts of red flags for your average American and the typical knee-jerk reaction is to push it away.

    I also think that race relations in America have been charged with rape by white mythologies around the topic. Neither color is very comfortable with looking at what really went on and both use rape rhetoric to avoid an in-depth discussion of sex relations in slavery.

    Which is, by the way, something Brazilians have dwelled upon ad nauseaum.

    Like


  167. Thad,

    Your problem (which Abagond has called you out on before) is that you inject other’s emotions into their comments while painting yours as purely objective. Frankly, it’s gotten old quick. Read what people say and respond to that–not what you think they said. If you don’t get it ask. Doesn’t that seem like a better strategy than working off of an incorrect assumption.

    For the last time (I really don’t know why you don’t get this and reduce to platitudes every single time), master/slave relations had to be rape because the woman could not say no without threat of harm. That threat could be undefined–anything from extra work to beatings to death–but the options were 1) say no and get punished and 2) say yes and survive. Was it similar for wives of that day? Well yes and no. The historical gender imbalance between men and women of the past doesn’t come close to the power differential between masters and slaves, the idea of owning someone, who was “marked” (by skin color) as being property. It’s too simplistic to say, “Well she could run away” (and go where?), she could fight back (ha!), etc. And most importantly, the definition of what happened then isn’t as important as the present implications. People can go back and forth all day–it’s not going to change what happened. But if we get into the habit of seeing victims of rape as “willing” in instances of coercive sex (and that willingness forgives the perpetrator), that’s a slippery slope. If a man holds a knife to a woman’s neck and forces her to have sex with him, didn’t she “trade” sex for her life? By Toure (and OP’s) definition, that’s not rape. So where do we draw the line?

    Like


  168. Obviously the last sentence in the first paragraph is a question. Forgive the typo!

    Like


  169. Jasmin says,
    Thad,

    Your problem (which Abagond has called you out on before) is that you inject other’s emotions into their comments while painting yours as purely objective. Frankly, it’s gotten old quick. Read what people say and respond to that–not what you think they said. If you don’t get it ask. Doesn’t that seem like a better strategy than working off of an incorrect assumption.

    For the last time (I really don’t know why you don’t get this and reduce to platitudes every single time), master/slave relations had to be rape because the woman could not say no without threat of harm. That threat could be undefined–anything from extra work to beatings to death–but the options were 1) say no and get punished and 2) say yes and survive. Was it similar for wives of that day? Well yes and no. The historical gender imbalance between men and women of the past doesn’t come close to the power differential between masters and slaves, the idea of owning someone, who was “marked” (by skin color) as being property. It’s too simplistic to say, “Well she could run away” (and go where?), she could fight back (ha!), etc. And most importantly, the definition of what happened then isn’t as important as the present implications. People can go back and forth all day–it’s not going to change what happened. But if we get into the habit of seeing victims of rape as “willing” in instances of coercive sex (and that willingness forgives the perpetrator), that’s a slippery slope. If a man holds a knife to a woman’s neck and forces her to have sex with him, didn’t she “trade” sex for her life? By Toure (and OP’s) definition, that’s not rape. So where do we draw the line?

    laromana says,
    Jasmin,
    Thanks for your EXCELLENT analysis of this topic and the incorrect manner SOME have CHOSEN to interpret it.

    Like


  170. Of course most were raped, we know that..

    Well let’s look at this… his use of the word most I suppose would mean greater than 50%….

    I can believe that most mixed race children with White fathers born to Black slave women were the product of some sort of sexual coercion.

    But.. the number of Black slaves brought to the US was around 500,000 with the average arrival date of around 1750. There are now roughly 50 million Black Americans. That’s almost 6 generations before liberation and 12 generations before the cessation of Jim Crow. If most Black slave women were raped by White males then I would suspect that the US Black population would have a much higher component of European genes and much of the US Black population would look more the light to medium complexioned Pardos of Brazil.

    Like


  171. Jasmin sez:

    Your problem (which Abagond has called you out on before) is that you inject other’s emotions into their comments while painting yours as purely objective.

    Jasmin, your argument would have a lot more weight if it weren`t for the fact that everyone on this board is pretty much doing this all the time – including yoursefl, as this post of yours quite clearly shows. Your problem isn’t that I’m “injecting other’s emotions” into their comment. Your problem is that you do not like what I say.

    I GET what you say, Jasmin. I don’t agree with it for a series of reasons which I outlined above.

    This isn’t me being arrogant and not understanding you: I understand PERFECTLY well. I do not agree with you. I do not believe that the coercion involved in most of these sexual cases – within and without of slavery – was the same sort of coercion involved in an individual holding a knife to a woman`s throat and using violence to force sex.

    I believe that what we are talking about was much more social-structural, much less individual in nature. It falls under the classification of what Arendt calls the “banality of evil”. Using “rape” to qualify this situation is like using “murder” to describe the holocaust: it is a wholly inadequate word because it mistakes the basic impulses and criminalities involved.

    It seems to me, Jasmin, that it’s you who are not taking the time to adequately read and try to understand what I am, in fact, saying. You seem to have it stuck in your head that I’m DEFENDING rape in slavery when in fact I’m saying something completely different.

    I thus think you are in no position at all to call me to task for “projecting emotions into other peoples’ views”. This is PRECISELY what you’re doing to me and you’re trying to avoid taking responsability for your actions in this case by PROJECTING what you are doing yourself onto me.

    You’re final words, by the way, betray your entire mode of thinking on this subject: “So where do we draw the line?”

    You believe that discussing the nature of sexual relations under slavery needs must mean one is dismissing the violence involved in them. This is not at all what I’m saying and that should be blindingly obvious by now.

    What you seem to be concerned with is moral “correctness”. You believe that sexual relations during slavery were evil. “Rape” seems to be the term which you feel ultimately expresses that evil. By refusing to move from that term, you seem to feel that you are fighting the good fight against the “dismissal” of the slave experience.

    My point is that your position actually ends up DISTORTING what happened in such a way that the truly evil and systemic nature of it is obfuscated by a discussion of whether this or that individual act was bad. My point is and always has been that what happened was actually significantly WORSE than the word “rape” can embrace.

    So again, Jasmin, I understand your point full well. I just do not AGREE with it. I think it’s not a decent historical or social analysis of what went on. Furthermore, I feel that a typical american dualistic way of looking at the world blinds you to what I’m saying. You seem to be saying that if it’s not rape, then it wasn’t a crime and it was in fact a dismissable act. these are the only two possibilities you see: dualism and reduction. It’s A or B. Chevvy or Dodge. coke or pepsi. Good or evil.

    You feel that if you define sex under slavery as “rape” and thus evil, anyone who disagrees with you needs must be thinking that what happened was good. dualistic reductionism in action here.

    My point is completely outside of that duality that you’re constructing. My point is that what happened under slavery was an evil that goes beyond the qualification of rape and the individualistic notions of crime, body and agency which underwrite the concept of rape.

    In other words, it wasn’t rape and it was supremely evil. Worse than rape, in fact.

    Got it?

    Like


  172. voice of reason is correct. White men do seem to be in decline. This process is well underway in Europe, especially the UK. Does the constant barrage of anti-white male propaganda have something to do with it? Maybe, but I think the negative portrayals of white men is more a symptom of white malaise rather than the cause of it. There is a dearth of spirit that is disheartening. From the decreasing levels of participation of white males in Boy Scouts, contact sports, higher education, employment etc, combined with the increasing levels of white illegitimacy, this does not bode well for the US. Other groups are doing significantly worse, of course, but being that white males have been and are currently the main generators of wealth in this country, this dearth of spirit will translate into no growth/negative growth for the economy for years to come.

    I’ve noticed a sharp increase in the level of interest in Survivalism. When the NYTimes makes note of it, it must be a trend:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/fashion/06survival.html

    Are white men so fed up with government that they are going to ground? All I know is I’m not going to be the last one without a gun.

    Laromana,

    You wrote:

    There is NO REASON for you to keep “SPECULATING” about the WHITE SLAVE MASTER/BW-Black girl “relationships” (and the prevalence of this DISGUSTING behavior) other than to CONDEMN them for the DEGRADING/DEMEANING abuses that they were.

    When did you become commissar of rape? I must have missed your nomination hearing. There were certainly plenty of abuses. There is no doubt about that. But I do not believe a large percentage of black women were raped during slavery or Jim Crow and there is no proof otherwise. Again, present proof if you have any.

    Mira wrote:

    It has nothing to do with being sexually excited or about sexual pleasure.

    I strongly disagree with this statement. Sex has quite a lot to do with pleasure, whether coerced (rape) or not. Rapists are, in fact, attracted to their victims. This is why younger women (and men) are more likely to be raped than older women (and men).

    Natasha W wrote:

    And never once did the black women here say that the rape of black women during slavery was the fault of black men.

    I never asserted that anyone here said this. But, as I have stated previously, I have heard it said more than a few times over the course of my life. Just because you haven’t heard it, doesn’t mean the sentiment doesn’t exist.

    Yes, turn this into an issue of black women “once again” disparaging black men. Because it’s always easier to deflect rather than discuss the matter at hand.

    We were discussing the matter at hand when you and others became hysterical. You wrote “Here in this post, what are the black men doing? Rationalizing the mistreatment of black women during slavery? Excuse my language, but this is pure f*ckery.. This statement was an outright lie and you know it. No one here has rationalized rape. You are a liar. You offer no proof. No quote. Not even a link to Willie Lynch. Just more thoughtless jabber intended to spread more heat than light. Hysteria reigns!

    Truth B. Told,

    I feel you. Don’t give up. Reason will out. Hopefully sooner rather than later.

    Abagond wrote:

    “Many, many, many men are raped in prison. But surely a few of em are loved and surely some… …Some are cunning and brilliant enough to use their bodies to gain liberation thus fooling their rapists. Of course most are raped, we know that, but some are sharp enough to trade that good-good for status or liberation. They are absolutely not “ho’s.” They’re sexually heroic. They’re self-liberating by any means necessary.”

    Again, even in prison, most men ARE NOT RAPED (only 13% according to this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_rape) This is the point I am making regarding master/slave sex. I don’t think most, or even a larger percentage of black women were raped during slavery. I haven’t read anything that supports the idea that black women were raped en masse during slavery. THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT BLACK WOMEN WEREN’T RAPED OR THAT BLACK WOMEN WERE LESS VIRTUOUS THAN OTHER WOMEN! This is to say that the amount of rape during slavery has been exaggerated out of proportion for political purposes.

    Thad wrote:

    “Btw, I think Vindicator hit on the best definition for rape presented here so far: “rape is not optional”.

    This definition doesn’t clarify matters either. What does “optional” mean? If a man threatens to kill a woman’s husband if she doesn’t have sex with him, is that rape? What if she doesn’t like her husband and says no. She clearly exercised an option and avoided rape, presumably. What of children? Can children exercise options? Is it possible for a very mature 14 year old to consent to sex with a 20 year old? What about a woman who really needs to feed her family and gives her perspective employer sex after he demanded it as a condition of employment. Is that rape? Did she have an option?

    Like


  173. @Thad

    I think the problem with term “rape” in my case is that I consider a lot of things rape, while you don’t. To me, there are different kinds of rapes, and some are more violent and worse than others. To me, Jasmin’s example makes perfect sense- both man holding a gun and a slave owner are rapists.

    On the other hand, I am with you when it comes to one important thing: using rape as a historical argument in discussions is not a good thing. Just like with other strong words, it is often used for myth building, manipulation and propaganda. I know this. “They raped us” is a common argument in my culture. Why do we hate Turks? (“Turk” can mean a lots of things, from a Turkish person to any Muslim). Because they raped us. O hear this argument a lot and I am fighting against it.

    Like


  174. With regard to:

    BtW, there are some really bad presumptions in that Yale study J linked us to.

    You had asked for a definition of rape.

    The link says:

    The American Heritage Dictionary defines rape as “The crime of forcing a female to submit to sexual intercourse.” And the legal definition is “carnal knowledge through the use of force or threat of force” according to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports. All three definitions describe a violent infringement on the personal dignity of an individual

    Feminist writers see rape as an extension of a male-dominated society’s control over females

    Their findings have shown that rape is a crime of violence, often regarded by the woman as a life-threatening act in which fear and humiliation are her dominant emotions. Sexual desire is less a motivation for the man than violent aggression.

    What I find strange is that you had asked for adefinition, up to that point, you had not yet offered one.

    When one is then given, you take up other issues in the link , but not the very definition you were seeking.

    I am a bit confused to say the least…

    Like


  175. uncle milton, you wrote:

    “There are now roughly 50 million Black Americans.”

    Incorrect. The number of black Americans is about 38 million. Possibly 39 million. Your number is way way too high.

    However, the current numbers reflect the fact that however many rapes of black female slaves occurred, the number that produced children was small.

    Then there were those liaisons that were voluntary. Was coercion a factor? Maybe. Or was it opportunity?

    Anyway, a more interesting exploration would look into the nature of rape in the black community today.

    Like


  176. With regard to:

    Well let’s look at this… his use of the word most I suppose would mean greater than 50%….

    I can believe that most mixed race children with White fathers born to Black slave women were the product of some sort of sexual coercion.

    But.. the number of Black slaves brought to the US was around 500,000 with the average arrival date of around 1750. There are now roughly 50 million Black Americans. That’s almost 6 generations before liberation and 12 generations before the cessation of Jim Crow. If most Black slave women were raped by White males then I would suspect that the US Black population would have a much higher component of European genes and much of the US Black population would look more the light to medium complexioned Pardos of Brazil.

    This makes the incredible false presumption that every rape had to lead to children being born…

    Like


  177. RR,

    I never asserted that anyone here said this.

    I never said you asserted that because was I addressing you? No, I was not. That comment was addressed to Truth B. Told. It’s not my fault that you feel that every statement I make is about you.

    We were discussing the matter at hand when you and others became hysterical. You wrote “Here in this post, what are the black men doing? Rationalizing the mistreatment of black women during slavery? Excuse my language, but this is pure f*ckery.. This statement was an outright lie and you know it. No one here has rationalized rape. You are a liar. You offer no proof. No quote.

    Who’s being hysterical now? RR, just cool it. Now you’re saying I’m not quoting when I could’ve sworn I just quoted in my comment above. If you don’t think that the comment above from Truth B. Told was a rationalization, you are out of your head. But we already knew that.

    Like


  178. Well done No_Slappz on correcting Uncle Milton’s
    unbelievable statement…

    Its a kind of ‘strange’ that you should have been the first one to do so, considering your reputation here ha ha

    Like


  179. To: well, everyone here…

    For those who wish to read on slavery, concept of race, and some ‘probably’ stats on “sexual coercion”, consider reading some of these articles found here:

    http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/08/one-familys-roots-a-nations-history/

    Like


  180. To quote a piece from the link above of the many articles found there:

    “What happens when you recognize that you and fellow whites share a bloodline with the people you are claiming are so different? And then there’s the fact that none of this has made much difference to black Americans. “

    Like


  181. voice of reason, you wrote:

    “I think white men today are unfairly forced to live with the burden of their ancestors. Whether they were actual ancestors of slave owners, or not, doesn’t seem to matter.”

    Yeah. It’s truly a sad sight at Brady’s Tavern these days. Every Friday Jimmy, Patrick, Paul and Tommy roll in, sit at a corner table, depression all over their faces. They order whiskeys and beers, knocking back the first round in seconds. The next few go down slower.

    “Every week it’s the same,” says the teary-eyed Jimmy.

    “I can’t take it much longer,” says Tommy.

    “How do we shake it?” asks Patrick.

    “You can’t,” says Paul. “You got to live your whole stinking life with this thing.”

    They drink more whiskey and start to cry. Blubbering like babies till the bartender comes over to their table.

    “Fellas,” he says, “It ain’t your fault. It ain’t.”

    But it was no use. The bartender’s words seemed to magnify their guilt. They cried harder and louder. And soon everyone in the bar was in tears.

    “What have we done?” said Jimmy. “What have we done?”

    Like


  182. To No Slappz –

    I’m actually laughing at your story!

    On a secondary note to add to this topic about “consensual White/Black unions”, I remind many of what I’ve said before: Many Black Americans today have Irish last names, and the Irish didn’t own slaves, they were slaves…

    HENRY LOUIS GATES JR, SAYS:
    “In my own family, Jane Gates–my great-great grandmother, born in 1818 as a slave — gave birth to several children who were fathered by one white man, including my great grandfather, Edward Gates. We know that he was an Irishman because of my father’s DNA. Because of shame, most probably, she took his identity with her to the grave. But using DNA tests, we have the chance of finding his identity, which we are pursuing in our next “African American Lives” program.”

    Like


  183. Thad,

    No it has merit because you make a point of assigning emotional weight to others’ arguments while ignoring the subjective in your own. Do you hear anyone else saying, “The problem with American sensibilities is blah, blah, blah, which is why all you people think X.”? Or, “You think blah, blah, blah” because apparently you are intuitive enough to read the minds of people you don’t know? Everyone uses a personal perspective when speaking/debating–I’m not denying that. However, I notice a select few who feel the need to assess (a mighty feat, prying into the backgrounds of people you don’t know) the “pathology” of commenters rather than the comments themselves. As far as I see it, I address what people say and sometimes how they say it. Whatever personal history, thought schemas, or possible biases they have is none of my concern, unless they throw them into the mix for consideration. Do you notice how your comments usually dissolve into a critique of a someone’s general way of thinking, not their specific thoughts on the topic at hand? That can be considered off-topic at best, derailing at worst–you might want to check that.

    Like


  184. With regard to:

    The black men bashing black women is just the wish come true of white people.
    Whites would rather have black people destroy each other than destroy the black race themselves.

    It reminded me of the following, ie the Hares, but I am very surprised when this piece was written….

    FOR A BETTER
    BLACK FAMILY
    By Nathan
    Hare
    Reprinted from EBONY
    February, 1976
    [From the forthcoming anthology,
    Rebels Without a Name: Collected
    Essays on Black Studies and the
    Study of Blackness]

    If I had to name the most tragic
    failure of black people historically
    in the United States, I’d have to
    point to the relations between
    black males and black females.
    Our confusion, our negligence, in
    this area is both curious and
    shocking, because the relations
    between male and female are the
    most crucial for the subjugation of
    a people.

    When the Swedish social scientist
    Gunnar Myrdal (with the
    collaboration of leading black and
    white liberal scholars) made his
    study of An American Dilemma
    during World War II, he found that
    whites placed sexual and social
    intimacy first as a source of
    contention around the issue of
    black equality while blacks put
    such matters last. Unfortunately,
    many black leaders and scholars
    echoed Myrdal in seeing this
    contrast as either irrelevant or as
    a cause for glee and nationwide
    chuckling. But I suspect that is
    merely shows that white folks
    know more about the art of racism
    than black people know about it.
    Whites, not blacks, are the
    professionals in the practice of
    racism against blacks.

    Meanwhile, we are left with an
    agonizing duality of racism and
    sexism, which combine to confuse
    us and to control and defeat our
    collective thrust. Almost anybody
    will acknowledge these days that
    we live in a society that is both
    sexist (or patriarchal) and racist.
    In such a society, it was
    historically the black male’s place.
    However, at the same time as
    they endeavored to emasculate
    the black male, they also sought
    to defeminize the black female.
    Her beauty was denied, her
    femininity and her virtues
    denigrated, and she was robbed of
    the chance to nestle comfortably
    on a pedestal of protected
    womanhood or otherwise to enjoy
    the privileges of a woman as
    defined by the white slave master
    society and her own, the slave
    society. She was not to be a
    woman any more than a black
    man could be a man.

    Yet black crusaders have attacked
    inequities in every major social
    institution in American society
    except the family (let alone black
    male-female relations as such).
    In the area of education, we have
    fought for school integration and
    have raised the alternative of
    community control and quality-
    black-oriented education. In
    politics, we now have the right to
    vote, and already have elected
    mayors, congressmen and
    women, state legislators and the
    like. In economics, we have the
    fair employment laws, “black
    capitalism,” and black left-wing
    efforts to replace capitalism with
    socialism. In esthetics, we have
    excellence in music and
    entertainment, acting on
    television, and black movies
    produced and directed by blacks as
    well as Hollywood proper. And in
    religion we have established our
    own churches and our own
    denominations, even our own
    sects, and now are searching for a
    universal black theology. But
    what have we done for the black
    family collectively, aside from
    asserting the notion of its
    strengths and tracing its elusive
    and ancient African roots? This is
    good anthropology but it is not
    black reconstruction.

    Too many black scholars and
    intellectuals have tried for shaking
    reasons in recent years to pretend
    that all is well with the black
    family, despite our recognized
    economic, educational and political
    deprivation. Appalling is the only
    word I know that begins to
    describe the way we have begun
    to play down and neglect the
    psychological effects and the social
    destruction of the inability to earn
    an acceptable living. We pretend
    that somehow we can’t see the
    deadly significance of the
    unemployment and
    underemployment of the black
    male—for whom a program of
    mass employment and
    reconstruction other than in
    prisons and military camps is
    necessary if the black family is
    ever going to be restructured as a
    viable leverage in the quest for
    social and economic elevation.
    The black male’s endeavor to
    camouflage or overcompensate for
    his own awareness that society
    has frustrated his performance of
    his role too often takes the form of
    a flight from the family nest.

    According to a United States
    Census report of late July, more
    than one out of three black
    families are now headed by
    females. Never mind the rhetoric
    to the effect that that may be
    ideal, ask most of the black
    females involved instead of the
    black and white liberal social
    scientists who live in two-parent,
    two-car families. Like most
    indices of social decay, this figure
    for black female heads of families
    is more than three times the rate
    for whites. Black children are
    about as likely to suffer the loss of
    at least one parent, (usually the
    father) as not to; among those
    black families with incomes under
    $4,000, the figure is nearly all of
    them—nine out of ten. We love
    and lose our parental figures too
    early and too often as children,
    and this frustration (and conflict)
    manifests itself in many subtle an
    complex ways in later adulthood
    love life.

    It is no wonder that black males
    and females are finding it
    increasingly hard to get along
    together, but we are ignoring this
    unfortunate fact in the name of a
    false racial pride. The problem, the
    black male-female schism, is
    complicated further by the inability
    of the white-dominated feminist
    movement to answer crucial
    questions it has raised for black
    female liberation. We, for our part,
    have failed to incorporate black
    women’s liberation as an integral
    part of the general black
    movement (as against sporadic
    black female efforts which, in their
    simple mimicry of white feminists,
    are too often hostile and contrary
    to the black male). The problem in
    turn is compounded by the
    displaced power struggle that
    presents itself between the black
    male and the black female.

    I propose that we begin to
    establish black love groups
    (psychological workshops, group
    therapy, couples therapy, and the
    like) to begin to elevate black love
    groups to the status of a social
    movement reminiscent of the
    popularity of so-called encounter
    groups among alienated and
    disaffected white individuals during
    the late 1960s. In this way we
    can begin to iron out our
    differences and our difficulties and
    perhaps to arrive ultimately at a
    workable solution. Understand
    me, I am not trying to say that
    black people as a group are sick,
    but it may be correct to say that a
    black person in our society doesn’t
    have to be sick in any way to
    experience problems in life and
    living requiring professional
    guidance. It is clear to me that at
    the same time as black love group
    participants work out their
    personal conflicts (under the
    supervision of qualified therapists
    and group leaders) they would
    indirectly contribute to the general
    resolution of black male-female
    conflicts so vital to the race as a
    whole in the crucial years ahead.

    I believe that through black love
    groups we may learn to love again
    (that is, to feel loved, to love
    ourselves, and therefore one
    another). We already know how
    to hate one another.

    http://www.blackthinktank.com/Drnathanhare.html

    Like


  185. R.R. says,
    When did you become commissar of rape?

    laromana says,
    R.R. ,
    Why don’t you answer your own question. It is YOU who have been SPECULATING about whether BW who were FORCED to have sex with WHITE SLAVE MASTERS WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT were “actually raped”.

    R.R. says,
    Rapists are, in fact, attracted to their victims. This is why younger women (and men) are more likely to be raped than older women (and men).

    laromana says,
    This statement is OUTRAGEOUS as well as FALSE.
    In an episode of Cold Case Files (crime documentary show) a deviant rapist was showcased who viciously raped an 89 year old woman he had known since he was a young boy. He talked about enjoying sex with corpses since he, not only viciously beat and raped his victims, but also had sex with their dead bodies.
    He also admitted that he chose his victims out of convenience because he “wanted sex” and knew his victims COULDN’T STOP him from RAPING them.

    Are you actually stating that this DISGUSTING individual had some sort of “attraction” for his 89 year old victim?

    Rape IS NOT about “attraction” but about the rapist exercising POWER over his victim. If you can’t understand this BASIC concept, it’s no wonder you have such a hard time accepting that BW who were FORCED to have sex with their WHITE SLAVE MASTERS were actually victims of RAPE
    .

    Like


  186. Mira sez:

    To me, Jasmin’s example makes perfect sense- both man holding a gun and a slave owner are rapists.

    The problem with this is that it presumes a state of individual rights and control over sexuality that NO woman at the time had. Jasmin claims that a slave couldn’t refuse sex without running the risk of harm. So far, so good: we are in agreement there. She then claims that this is functionally the equivalent of rape. Hmm. I’m not so sure. What I don’t get is where this becomes a specifically black/white issue.

    Women in general were property at this time. Their reproductive capacities were not their own to control but under the direct and legal control of their male “protectors”. The difference between free and slave on this point wasn’t the difference between having control over your sexuality and not having control over your sexuality: it was the difference between YOUR HUSBAND having control over your sexuality and YOUR OWNER having control over your sexuality. Your husband was LEGALLY AND MORALLY considered to be your master, Mira. This was no rhetorical point: this was legal fact.

    So, if as you and Jasmin say, the lack of ability to say “no” to sex constitutes rape, then women in general were in this position.

    What I disagree with is the false dichotomy that you’re constructing here, where supposedly on one had we have white women with full control over their sexuality and black women with none at all. What existed was NO female control over sexuality. The difference between the two wasn’t female versus male control: it was WHICH male controlled.

    Here’s another point: there are as many records of slave masters forcing two slaves to have sex together as there are of slave masters having sex with slaves. The simple fact of the matter is that a master could attempt to “marry off” his female slaves any way he chose and they likewise had little say in the matter. Coercion in sex was a general part of female slave life. And yet we don’t see you or Jasmin claiming that black/black relationships under slavery were likewise rape.

    Why not?

    Again, I’m pointing all this out not to dismiss sexual coercion under slavery: I’m pointing this out to show that the problem runs alot deeper than your rape metaphor can handle.

    Also, as a social scientist, you are violating one of Durkheim’s main precepts with this “rape” thing: you are not adequately dividing up taxonomies of social facts, but generally lumping together. this doesn’t help us understand how sexual coercion works: rather it muddies the waters. And, in my mind, that only DECREASES our chances of eliminating sexual coercion.

    Like


  187. Natasha W,

    Perhaps I am being a bit hysterical. I apologize.

    This is what he wrote:

    “I for one am getting tired of listening to some of these women carry on as if
    A) they were there personally
    B) these are the only women in history to be subjected to mass rape.”

    I don’t know how either one of these statements could be understood as rationalizing the rape of black women. In the first statement, he was merely pointing out the possibility that not all interracial sex during slavery was rape. In the second statement, he is saying that other groups of women don’t use the depredations perpetrated upon their ancestors as weapons against contemporary men (I disagree with him on this point. Various groups of women have made similar accusations against other groups of men, with varying degrees of justification). You read something completely different in his words. You were wrong, IMO. Please explain how Truth’s remarks could be interpreted as a rationalization of rape.

    Like


  188. Am I wrong or do some people here think every Black woman slave was raped? At the time that most of the Black population were slaves, there were very few slaveholders by comparison to the white population.

    Like


  189. To J:

    This makes the incredible false presumption that every rape had to lead to children being born…

    J, my first degree was in biology so I do something about the human reproductive process. The nature of sexual domination among White males towards Black females slaves was not like that of today’s rapists. It very unlikely that the same rapist would attack the same woman more than twice, because this would strongly increase his chance of being caught by the police. This strong disincentive did not exist for the White slave owners (or more commonly the White overseers who were younger, more numerous, and had more regular contact with slave women..)

    Whether a White man physically forced himself on a Black slave woman.. induced her into sexual relations through threat of violence or possibility through withholding violence.. (remember the overseers held the whips…) or just general better treatment.. there was basically zero retribution against them. To use Abagond’s prison analogy this is similar to women held captive in is some countries (such as Iran during the Shah’s time and after the revolution…) where they are routinely and repeatedly raped by their male jailers so I would strongly suspect when one would have such full control over a woman that the sexual contact would not be “one and done”.

    Like


  190. To no_slappz:

    Incorrect. The number of black Americans is about 38 million. Possibly 39 million. Your number is way way too high.

    Around 38.5 million according to Wikipedia which got it’s information from the US census.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#Race_and_ethnicity

    I was busy at work and didn’t have time to look up the figures… My other figure was off also (although I had definitely heard the 500,000 figure before):

    “Twelve million Africans were shipped to the Americas from the 16th to the 19th centuries. Of these, an estimated 645,000 were brought to what is now the United States. The largest number were shipped to Brazil (see slavery in Brazil). The slave population in the United States had grown to four million by the 1860 Census.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States

    But the main point I was trying to make is there has been a marked growth in the number of Black Americans from the original slaves. (I know that voluntary immigrants and their decedents from the Caribbean, Latin American, and African also make up a percentage of Black Americans but the large majority of ancestors of Black Americans were originally from slaves. Given the relatively low numbers of founding stock and the fact that Whites generally outnumbered Blacks by anywhere from 4 to 10 times their population I believe if there was repeat sexual contact of White men with “most” (over 50%) of the Black slave women over 6 to 7 generations (plus 6 generations during Jim Crow…) I would expect a much higher European admixture.

    Anyway, a more interesting exploration would look into the nature of rape in the black community today.

    There have been discussions of this on other threads…..I try to stay on topic when I can.

    Like


  191. With regard to:

    “To J:

    “This makes the incredible false presumption that every rape had to lead to children being born…

    J, my first degree was in biology”

    Thanks…However, I humbly submit that your knowledge of Black/African history and/or slavery is NOT in keeping with your chosen subject of Biology

    Like


  192. With regard to:

    “Am I wrong or do some people here think every Black woman slave was raped? At the time that most of the Black population were slaves, there were very few slaveholders by comparison to the white population.”

    My mind goes to ‘cherry picking’

    “act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking

    Like


  193. Much off what you say hear Thad in essence is from a Euro/male and academic centred approach with the issue of ‘objectivity’, defining terms etc, which carries us back to euro-centricism but one thing it is never African-centred.

    Have you not observed this in your own thinking and reasoning ??

    Like


  194. It must be a morning thing…Got out of the wrong side of the bed…he he

    With regard to:

    Many Black Americans today have Irish last names, and the Irish didn’t own slaves, they were slaves…

    Hidden histories: Some Irish and African American Stories Are Intertwined

    http://www.irishecho.com/newspaper/story.cfm?id=17800

    Like


  195. @Thad

    I answered all your questions. Some of them were lost in that unfortunate post that got deleted due to my bad connection. So I will repeat.

    First of all, Jasmin and I are not the same person. Meaning: just because I agree with something she wrote doesn’t automatically mean all of our views on this matter are the same.

    Women in general were property at this time. Their reproductive capacities were not their own to control but under the direct and legal control of their male “protectors”.

    I know that, Thad. I wrote that. I am not sure if that’s the bit that got lost. Yes, women were property. This doesn’t mean all sex between whites was rape. Then again, I bet many of it was rape. If a man has a power over you, if he can legally own you, he will, most likely, use his power and his privilege.

    Your husband was LEGALLY AND MORALLY considered to be your master, Mira. This was no rhetorical point: this was legal fact.

    Yes, I know. That’s why I’m saying men were raping their wives. Not all men, of course. But most of them, yes. Actually, it was considered a normal and natural thing.

    So, if as you and Jasmin say, the lack of ability to say “no” to sex constitutes rape, then women in general were in this position.

    I think Jasmin and I disagree on this, Thad. You will have to ask her about her opinion, but I yes, I do believe women in general were in this position.

    I am not saying being a slave master’s white wife was equally bad as being his black slave. Of course not. But when it comes to control over their sexuality, white women had none. She wasn’t in a position to say “no”. I am aware of the fact the consequences of her “no” wouldn’t be as drastic as black slave’s “no”, but that doesn’t men we’re not talking about rape in both of the cases.

    What I disagree with is the false dichotomy that you’re constructing here, where supposedly on one had we have white women with full control over their sexuality and black women with none at all.

    Where did I write this, Thad? True, my post on this got deleted, but I am sure I never wrote anything about “white women having full control”. Quite the opposite. Are you sure you’re not taking some other person’s post as my own? News flash, Thad: Just because some of us disagree with you doesn’t mean we all think the same nor that we disagree because of the same reason.

    And yet we don’t see you or Jasmin claiming that black/black relationships under slavery were likewise rape.

    Once again, Thad, Jasmin and I are not the same person.

    I am not claiming anything about black/black relationships during the salve time because I don’t know much, if anything, about it.

    Also, as a social scientist, you are violating one of Durkheim’s main precepts with this “rape” thing: you are not adequately dividing up taxonomies of social facts, but generally lumping together.

    Yes, I did admit my understanding of the word “rape” might be different than yours. I see it in a broader sense than you. To me, rape is not just a violent stranger holding a gun.

    I do admit mechanisms of oppression are different in different cases (“types”?) of rape. We must examine them all and approach them from different positions. But labelling only one type “rape” (a horrible word we are learned to be terrified of) is not helping, either. Even today, many people think it’s impossible for a husband to rape his wife. Or that “date rape” is somehow less than a “real rape”. Or that a man can not be raped.

    Similarly. Why do you think killing of Native Americans is not openly regarded as genocide, for example? (By American whites, at least). Because even words “killing and land taking” do not sound as horrible as “genocide”.

    Like


  196. J,

    I know what cherry picking is, I also know that is has significance in your arguments as well.

    It also appears that you never did any statistical analysis in your study of biology. Your arguments are mostly based on emotion and those that disagree with you fall into the category of the white supremacist patriarchy.

    To be a conscious Black, you don’t have to buy the pseudo science, myths and speculation, that has become the default intellectual Philosophy of Blackness.

    I will ask again, to what purpose

    Like


  197. … I am not quite sure of what the point you are suggesting.

    Nor is it clear to me how you reached the conclusion you have.

    Anyhow, you asked a question:

    “Am I wrong or do some people here think every Black woman slave was raped? At the time that most of the Black population were slaves, there were very few slaveholders by comparison to the white population”

    I attempted to answer it.

    What is wrong with that??

    If what I say is of no substance, with regard to your question and/or anything I might say that is relevant to your question. Then it should be pretty easy to bring forth an argument to reject it.

    No??????

    Like


  198. J,

    I will ask this again, to what purpose does this statement serve in defining Black people? “Slave women were raped by the white man”. It is a fact, but does anyone here think that being a slave is less of a degradation. Even if you were not raped or beaten or had a relatively normal life as a slave, slavery is not any more moral and the effects of it any less devastating on the psyche.

    I value the ability to be able to control all of my life, not just sex.

    Like


  199. Forgive me, but I am afraid, I think you are the only one here who thinks it defines Black people….or at the very least is entertaining the idea

    If you can show me a post where this has been suggested by any of the commentators here, then I will be more than willing to reconsider my position.

    Like


  200. With regard to:

    “I am not saying being a slave master’s white wife was equally bad as being his black slave. Of course not. But when it comes to control over their sexuality, white women had none. She wasn’t in a position to say “no”. I am aware of the fact the consequences of her “no” wouldn’t be as drastic as black slave’s “no”, but that doesn’t men we’re not talking about rape in both of the cases.”

    I see once again the problems of ‘perspectives’ and hence why I raised the question of Euro-centred perspectives etc
    earlier.

    Depending on what ‘tools of analysis’ you utilise can often determine the topic of a conversation and even its outcomes

    With regard to the above. Personally I think the whole argument is fallacious because in a way it is comparing two different phenomenon.

    For instance in Western society, though White females were viewed as the property of men. The status of their
    ‘property’ was not that equivalent to a ‘slave’.

    Furthermore the status of Black slaves from the 15 century onward is agreed upon by scholars as being the most inhumane form of slavery in human history (although all slavery is inhumane but that is not quite the point I am trying to establish).

    So the Black female slave was sub-human, and was treated as such, and no stage does the White female, even in her lowly status reach this level.

    Like


  201. J,

    Forgive me, but I am afraid, I think you are the only one here who thinks it defines Black people….or at the very least is entertaining the idea.

    Then tell me why it is such an issue with Toure’s statement.

    Why are the comments stressing the power relationship? That doesn’t meet the criteria of rape in the law, only sexual harassment.

    If everything was so cut and dried how were some slaves able to sell goods or hire their skills out in order to save money to buy their or their families freedom? I see no difference in that, than using sex as a commodity. But according to you and others here, none of this could have ever happened.

    Contrary to your beliefs, albeit rare, some children were freed and left property. I knew of one such person who lived near me.

    Like


  202. J,

    I never implied white women’s status was the same as slave’s status. White women were not slaves and they were seen as fully human. Unlike slaves.

    I was talking about the fact white women’s will, when it comes to sex, didn’t legally exist, at least not in marriage. It means men were free to rape their wives. The mechanism behind this oppression was completely different, in both quality and quantity, than mechanism of slavery.

    So the Black female slave was sub-human, and was treated as such, and no stage does the White female, even in her lowly status reach this level.

    I agree.

    Where did I write anything that could be considered as a disagreement with this claim? Where did I say white women were slaves, or in equally (or “more or less the same”) bad situation as African slaves?

    All I did was answering Thad’s question. I wrote that, yes, I do consider many of the historical white on white sex (sex in marriage, no less) to be classified as rape (in the way I get that word). To me, rape can mean many things. It’s not reserved for violent strangers with guns that attack you in dark. Or inmates who rape you in prison. Or master having sex with slaves that he considers sub-human.

    Why am I getting the feeling that you’re not actually talking about the act of rape, but the slavery in overall and the inhumane things whites did to slaves (rape just being one of the horrors)? That is another matter. Nobody says (well, at least I don’t) that being a white woman during slavery was the same (or just a little bit better) than being a black woman, a slave. I never said that. I never implied such a thing. I don’t understand why you got that from what I wrote.

    Like


  203. Hathor,

    Am I wrong or do some people here think every Black woman slave was raped?…

    …You’re wrong.

    At the time that most of the Black population were slaves, there were very few slaveholders by comparison to the white population.

    In the matter we are discussing, the amount of slaveholders in comparison to the general white population means what exactly…? This sentence is more than irrelevant.

    I will ask this again, to what purpose does this statement serve in defining Black people? “Slave women were raped by the white man”.

    It doesn’t “define” black people. And I doubt anyone here thinks that it does.

    I find the reaction of whites and some black people to this topic to be quite entertaining. It’s always “Why must we discuss this?” Because it’s a part of American history. History is not always comfortable and that doesn’t make it any less worthy of dicussion. Can you imagine the reaction if, during a discussion of Pearl Harbor, someone said “Why is this so important? Does it define America?” Or 50 years from now while discussing 9/11, “What is the purpose of this discussion? Were most Americans killed during 9/11?”

    Just… hilarious.

    J,

    To discuss this issue of rape and abuse is not the same as suggesting:

    “…rape defines Black people…”

    No-one is suggesting this, or more specifically, I am not.

    Furthermore the issue of rape occurred in the cultural context of a White Supremacy society and this is why it is also important to discuss it with regard to the ‘collective’.

    So this aspect of history no matter how unpleasent for some, shouldn’t be shield away, and this is my point.

    Exactly.

    Like


  204. Natasha,

    You have not been discussing history, but reacting to Toure’s statement.

    I was speaking of the ratio of masters to the number of slaves. Not well written I admit.

    I know I have gotten the moniker of “some Blacks”, because I choose not to be in lock step with you and J.

    Like


  205. Hathor,

    You have not been discussing history, but reacting to Toure’s statement.

    The discussion has broadened.

    I was speaking of the ratio of masters to the number of slaves. Not well written I admit.

    Because…?

    I know I have gotten the moniker of “some Blacks”, because I choose not to be in lock step with you and J.

    Yeah, sure. You’re very special.

    This has nothing to do with blackness or black power, but why you feel the need to minimize this topic. You haven’t added anything yet except to say “Why is this relevant?” If you think it’s irrelevant, you don’t have to participate in the discussion. Simple.

    Like


  206. With regard to:

    “Then tell me why it is such an issue with Toure’s statement.

    Why are the comments stressing the power relationship? That doesn’t meet the criteria of rape in the law, only sexual harassment… and so on and so forth”

    One of the problems with being on this site is that one rarely gets the whole picture of a story.

    I had asked Abagond whether he could provide us with any other outstanding information??

    From the words on the screen isn’t Toure talking about inter-racial dating and he equates Black female slaves who could use their sexual prowess with being heroic or words to that effects??

    In essence I do not think he is talking about Black female slaves as most people think here.

    He starts with the proviso, that he knows most women were raped and most generally do.

    His position is in counteracting the question of inter-racial dating, which he is a part of. He goes on to suggest that during slavery some Black female slaves also went with their slavemasters. So in essence it is also fine for him to date whoever he wants.

    This is what I think the whole dialogue is essentially about.
    Primarily it is about inter-racial dating and as a result of the topic matter, Toure then reveals his reasons why it is acceptable to do so, and subsequently a views about slavery/Black women etc

    He highlights these women are ‘heroic’ to establish his point that these women chose the relationship and not forced, because he concedes that rape was the status quo, as you can see from the quote above.

    So the series of quotes is nothing to do with slavery defining Black women. The quotes arfe merely metaphors for something much deeper.

    I hope this clarifies somewhat

    Like


  207. Sorry Mira!!

    Perhaps I should have stated my position a little bit more clearly viz. the origins of the debate etc is in essence a fallacious argument.

    And that is why I posted and enquired of the original commentator earlier if he has ever observed his own male/euro-centred/academic perspective vis-a-vis an African centred.

    This was the essence of my post, I know you never said many things but I highlighted your quote cos it encapsulated the essence of the dialogue thus far (without me cut n pasting various bits) which was taking place.

    Perhaps it may have been better if I had just come outright and directed my comments straight at the original commentator

    Hope this clarifies…if even a little??

    Like


  208. And again, follow the quotes from Toure:

    1. If you’re Black & dislike seeing Black men with white women

    2. does it give you pause to know that the Klan agrees with you?

    3. I u’stand & respect the nationalistic dating perspective

    4. & abhor the Klan’s segregative impulse.

    5. But politics is making strange bedfellows ******

    6. Many, many, many of our great grandmothers were raped in slavery

    7. But surely a few of em were loved…

    8. Some were cunning and brilliant enough to use their bodies to gain liberation thus fooling massa.

    9. Of course most were raped, we know that, but some were sharp enough to trade that good-good for status or liberation

    10. They are absolutely not “ho’s.” They’re sexually heroic. They’re self-liberating by any means necessary

    Like


  209. And having a look at this breakdown.

    I would like to surmise the following:

    I think Toure was having a conversation with a ‘militant’ Black woman…

    In 1. Note he says Black men with White women and not the other way round, or at least he fails to mention both sexes together (ie Black women with White males) in the same sentence

    In 2. He asks the question to the women, ‘does it give you pause to know that the Klan agrees with you?’. The lady concerned appears to have as a principle that Black men should date only Black women (as we shall see later) and hence Toure’s reference to the Klan

    In 3 to confirm that the woman is militant, he says: ‘ I u’stand & respect the NATIONALISTIC dating perspective’

    Hmmm!!!

    Like


  210. Natasha,

    You haven’t added anything yet except to say “Why is this relevant?” If you think it’s irrelevant, you don’t have to participate in the discussion. Simple.

    I comment for reasons most people do. This blog and the internet sometime piques my interest. I never accept it as news or expect any critical thinking to come of this. I would look to other sources for that. At times I want to be engaged and to add to the conversation, which I guess is why you comment. I haven’t found your comment to be profound or that relevant to advancing knowledge, either.

    Like


  211. And just to produce yet further evidence that this matter is not about slavery defining Black women, or in fact ever was.

    Even Abagond starts this thread by informing us that Toure is married to a Lebanese (‘White’) and then presents the various quotes, which he did not have to do, if he did not think this was relevant vis-a-vis the quotes…

    Like


  212. Hathor, cheers!

    Like


  213. Well, this discussion seems to continue to be going strong. [Roll eyes]

    Jasmin sez:
    No it has merit because you make a point of assigning emotional weight to others’ arguments while ignoring the subjective in your own. Do you hear anyone else saying, “The problem with American sensibilities is blah, blah, blah, which is why all you people think X.”?

    Oh, come ON, Jasmin! Comentators are saying things like this about white people and black people on this blog all the time. Surely you are aware of this fact.

    However, I notice a select few who feel the need to assess (a mighty feat, prying into the backgrounds of people you don’t know) the “pathology” of commenters rather than the comments themselves.

    Which is, of course, PRECISELY what you are doing to me here, as well as derailing the topic.

    Nice trolling technique, Jasmin, but I’m on to you now. If you’d like to comment on the topic at hand instead of hypocritically attack me for things you yourself do, then I’ll be happy to respond. Otherwise, feel free to take your attacks on my person over to our blog where you can flame away to your heart’s content without derailing this topic.

    😛

    Like


  214. Mira sez:

    Yes, women were property. This doesn’t mean all sex between whites was rape.

    Now this is where I get confused, Mira. Earlier, you seemed to agree with the position that if a woman doesn’t have the right to say “no” without suffering some sanction, then any sex with said woman is, ipso facto, rape.

    You agree that women, in general, were the property of their husbands during the times that we are discussing. You agree that their sexuality was, in fact, controlled by these men. And yet only some of this sex was rape?

    Either you’re using a different definition of “rape” for free white women than for enslaved blacks or something else is going on here.

    To me, the notion of “rape” is predicated upon a series of rights and concepts of self and control of sexuality which were not applied to women AT ALL during the period we are discussing.

    Faced with this, one can take two logical positions:

    1) The Abagond absolutist morality position, which says “My moral views are paramount. That they didn’t have my moral views is no excuse for the evil they did.”

    …or…

    2) The historical relativist position (what J would probably call the “academic euro-centered position”) that says “We shouldn’t judge people of the past based on today’s moral and legal values”.

    Neither of these positions, however, allows one to qualify what happened to slave women as rape while simultaneously believing that what was happening to free women wasn’t.

    If one takes the Abagond Absolutists view, then any sex which occurred under coercive conditions where the woman couldn’t say “no” without incurring punishment MUST be qualified as “rape”.

    If one takes the relativist position, most of what free and slave women were experiencing couldn’t be qualified as rape because the people who were undergoing it and their surrounding society didn’t qualify it as such.

    But you can’t have your cake and eat it too: you can’t take an absolutist stance on coercive sex and black women while maintaining a relativist stance on coercive sex and white women.

    Mira, the unexamined prejudices on this topic which are being displayed by many posters here should be obvious. Here’s a two big ones:

    1) WW/BM sex is NOT qualified by anyone above as rape, even though it happened quite a bit more than we used to believe and it was EQUALLY coercive. The silence on this point is thundering and telling: apparently, people believe that sexual coercion cannot be applied to slave men.

    2) BW/BM sex under slavery is not qualified as rape, even though we have plenty of evidence that masters forced couples together at least as often as they forced themselves on slave women. Here’s another telling point: for many of the commnentators above, sexual coercion is apparently a minor or even non-existant issue as long as it involves appropriately-colored matches.

    Given these points, it’s my belief that most of the commentators here could really care less about rape or slavery, per se. As I mentioned above, the entire issue is simply being brought up as convenient ammunition for today’s political battles.

    Ana and I got to talking about this topic over dinner last night and she sees it pretty much as me. Women, in general, were property – and continued to be so, by the way, for quite some time after abolition. Their sexual and reproductive capacity was not controlled by themselves, but by men. This was true for black and white. NEITHER had the right to say “no”.

    Rape itself during this period was not understood to be a fundamental violation of a woman’s sexual rights but a destruction of her value as another man’s property. In many instances, rapists were forced by law to MARRY their victims because it was presumed that the woman in question had been “ruined” by the attack and thus needed to be assigned a master, given that no other man would likely want her.

    Rape – presuming you want to call these sort of coercive sexual relations by that name – was thus endemic at this point in time due to the GENDER structure, not due to the race structure. All race determined in this sense was WHICH man was going to be coercing your sexuality, not IF a man was going to be doing it.

    (By the way, J, to say this is not to deny or even ameliorate the coercion, so why this would be a “european” viewpoint is beyond me – unless, of course, you mean that any view unpopular among black people needs must be “european”).

    Like


  215. J sez:

    For instance in Western society, though White females were viewed as the property of men. The status of their ‘property’ was not that equivalent to a ’slave’.

    For thew purposes of the present argument, it doesn’t have to be. The logic being expressed is that “inability to say ‘no’ means rape”. White women were also unable to say “no”. They were thus raped. No one is arguing that their overall lives and status were as bad as black women’s. You are taking a particular argument made on one point and trying to stretch to encompass a general comparison which I, for one, am not doing.

    The REAL difference between slave and free women’s form of servitude during this period has to do with marriage and family laws and how these were applied to them, not rape.

    Family law and customs were the woman’s one defence during this period – and a very chancy one it was. Black slave women had no access to these laws and customs because their marriages carried no legal weight at all. This gave black women one less tool – and an important if chancy tool – with which to construct their lives.

    THIS is what black women of the time mostly complained about, J, not rape. The inability to keep one’s family together, the threat of being a simple, alienated piece of property with no human ties whatsoever.

    To understand this in its proper context is not to “dismiss rape”. If you really think about it and understand what it meant to be a woman without a family in1800, you’d be MORE horrified than you would by the concept of rape.

    This is why I’m saying that what went on was actually WORSE than what today’s “rape” concept implies.

    Furthermore the status of Black slaves from the 15 century onward is agreed upon by scholars as being the most inhumane form of slavery in human history (although all slavery is inhumane but that is not quite the point I am trying to establish).

    Sorry, J. I know you’d LIKE that to be the case, but there simply isn’t that consensus – if only for the simple reason that none of us scholars has yet constructed an effective “inhuman-o-meter”. 😀

    So the Black female slave was sub-human, and was treated as such, and no stage does the White female, even in her lowly status reach this level.

    Wrong again. There are several examples in history which I could bring up which show white women being treated as sub-human. Furthermore, what’s your definition of “human” here? Our current views of humanity, based as these are on liberal, illuminist, eurocentric understandings of rights and the individual? Or some sort of “afrocentric” view? In either case, I’d be willing to argue that women – in general – were never treated as fully human.

    Hell, Anthropologist Sherry Ortner has written a decent paper on this very topic: a classic. World-wide, she says, women have ALWAYS been considered somewhat unhuman, standing in opposition to man as nature does to culture.

    I’m inclined to agree with Ortner.

    Like


  216. There are 2 reasons:

    1. It is just a fallacious argument in my opinion – one that I believe is steeped in eurocenticism, which does not mean that an African centred position could not generate a fallacious argument from the same topic. However, it would definitely not be from this current standpoint,

    and

    2. It also does not represent the essence of Toure’s position

    Hopes this has helped to explain some of my thinking

    Like


  217. Furthermore the status of Black slaves from the 15 century onward is agreed upon by scholars as being the most inhumane form of slavery in human history (although all slavery is inhumane but that is not quite the point I am trying to establish).

    Sorry, J. I know you’d LIKE that to be the case, but there simply isn’t that consensus – if only for the simple reason that none of us scholars has yet constructed an effective “inhuman-o-meter”.

    It all depends on what history books you use, and what traditions you utilise.

    Like


  218. And again:

    “There are several examples in history which I could bring up which show white women being treated as sub-human

    Please tell what these traditions are and how it compares to the process of slavery please??

    Like


  219. And yet again:

    “Black slave women had no access to these laws and customs BECAUSE THEIR MARRIAGES carried no legal weight at all. This gave black women one less tool – and an important if chancy tool – with which to construct their lives”.

    What slave society are you referring to here, when you talk about marriages and also what time period specifically??

    I ask because many slaves were not allowed to be married. So I do not understand your argument, unless you can clarify??

    Like


  220. U.S. from the late 17th century on.

    And that’s precisely my point: slaves weren’t allowed to be married under law. The did, indeed, marry if we take the English common law definition of “marriage” and, in a couple of cases, such a definition was applied to black couples – never when it contradicted a planter’s “rights” to them as property, however.

    I think you’re unclear about my point here because you’re conceiving of marriage as primarily a legal construct and I conceive of it as a social construct. Marriages ALWAYS happen. Whether or not they are legally recognized is the question.

    Like


  221. Please tell what these traditions are and how it compares to the process of slavery please??

    Well, what definition of “humanity” are we working with here? Is the Eurocentric illuminst one good enough for our purposes or would you like to supply another?

    Like


  222. It all depends on what history books you use, and what traditions you utilise.

    J, if you’re cherry-picking your history books, you’re in no position to claim – as you did – what “most scholars” believe on this topic.

    Like


  223. …statistical reality…

    Nice oxymoron, RR. goes to show you have a very chaky grasp of both statistics and reality.

    Like


  224. However, I am not cherry-picking, from an African centred perspective. This is what African centred scholars believe.
    viz. The transatlantic slavery is worse than other forms of slavery in history.

    Many euro-centred academics like yourself have a contrary position, or use fallacious arguments like a inhuman-barometer etc but never use such argument consistently, but only when it is an attempt to shoot down an ‘African centred position’

    Like


  225. With regard to:

    Well, what definition of “humanity” are we working with here? Is the Eurocentric illuminst one good enough for our purposes or would you like to supply another?

    Its up to you what definition you choose to use

    Like


  226. However, I am not cherry-picking, from an African centred perspective. This is what African centred scholars believe.

    Ah, but you originally said “all scholars”. That’s a hell of a difference, J.

    Many euro-centred academics like yourself have a contrary position, or use fallacious arguments like a inhuman-barometer etc but never use such argument consistently, but only when it is an attempt to shoot down an ‘African centred position’

    J, wev’e gone ’round several times regarding my problems with “afro-centrism” which – from the authors you’ve quoted me so far – simply seems to be old-school diffucionist theory done up in black face. I disagree with the idea that bad theory suddenyl becomes good when it’s applied by a group of scholars from a historically s#$%-upon land.

    But seriously, man, I’d wish you’d stop ascribing positions to me and I partiocularly wish that you’d cut it with this Anglo-Saxon dichotic view of the world which seems to stipulate that if one doesn’t agree with your view of reality, one needs must be “euro-centric”.

    There are a couple of more positions out there than “J’s version of Afrocentrism” and “Eurocentrism”.

    And for what it’s worth, I’ve used the EXACT same arguments regarding supposedly universalist measurements of stuff like “inhumanity” to shoot down the arguments of racist fools like Steve Sailor and No_Slappz. This is hardly a “apply to blacks only” position.

    Like


  227. On teh issue of the marriages. You say:

    The REAL difference between slave and free women’s form of servitude during this period has to do with marriage and family laws and how these were applied to them, not rape.

    Family law and customs were the woman’s one defence during this period – and a very chancy one it was. Black slave women had no access to these laws and customs because their marriages carried no legal weight at all. This gave black women one less tool – and an important if chancy tool – with which to construct their lives.

    THIS is what black women of the time mostly complained about, J, not rape. The inability to keep one’s family together, the threat of being a simple, alienated piece of property with no human ties whatsoever.

    This is what I do not understand that Black women of the time mostly complained about??

    They would have complained about both, but being Black ie sub-human they had little or no rights before the courts,
    and none with regard to what you have highlighted.

    In essence the law of the land did not apply to them. And if you read slave codes it is obvious…

    So this is whyI say do not understand your point

    Like


  228. @J

    Sorry Mira!!

    Perhaps I should have stated my position a little bit more clearly viz. the origins of the debate etc is in essence a fallacious argument.

    It’s ok. 🙂 I don’t mind criticism, but I thought you missed the point of my post. I know this topic isn’t about white women; I mentioned them because Thad asked about my opinion.

    Speaking of which….

    You agree that women, in general, were the property of their husbands during the times that we are discussing. You agree that their sexuality was, in fact, controlled by these men. And yet only some of this sex was rape?

    I used “some” because I don’t know if all of men used their power. Only some of this sex was rape because I assume not ALL men used their power (and their “right”) to dominate women. There were, perhaps, some men who treated women differently. Maybe. If they didn’t use the power, if they made possible for a woman to say “no”, then it wasn’t a rape. Perhaps there were men like that.

    If one takes the relativist position, most of what free and slave women were experiencing couldn’t be qualified as rape because the people who were undergoing it and their surrounding society didn’t qualify it as such.

    Now, this is a valid point. Was something rape if it’s rape for us today, but it wasn’t regarded as such? Not sure what to say here. First of all, do we know what victims thought about it? I guess we do about white women- they thought sex is meant to be that way. It is for making babies. If you want a baby, you must me strong during those moments when your husband is doing that awful thing to you. And if he’s drunk, hit you and have a violent sex with you… Well, you must understand that, men are like that. If you don’t shut up and he slaps you, well, you were asking for it. Etc, etc.

    But do we know how slaves felt about it? How did they call it?

    1) WW/BM sex is NOT qualified by anyone above as rape, even though it happened quite a bit more than we used to believe and it was EQUALLY coercive. The silence on this point is thundering and telling: apparently, people believe that sexual coercion cannot be applied to slave men.

    I didn’t know there were any sex between black men and white women during the slave days. So I don’t know what to think about it. If a man attacked white woman yes, that was rape. If white woman owned slaves (did this happen?) and black men were her property, sex between white master and black male slave is also rape. But I am not sure if this happened. If there were two people “having fun” in secret, with mutual consent and without one having power and control over another, then it was not rape. This situation seems impossible for slave masters, though.

    2) BW/BM sex under slavery is not qualified as rape, even though we have plenty of evidence that masters forced couples together at least as often as they forced themselves on slave women.

    That was rape in my book.

    Given these points, it’s my belief that most of the commentators here could really care less about rape or slavery, per se. As I mentioned above, the entire issue is simply being brought up as convenient ammunition for today’s political battles.

    I stated my opinion on “they raped us” as political argument several times. I don’t like it and I don’t think it’s useful. It’s actually disrespectful for the victims.

    Rape – presuming you want to call these sort of coercive sexual relations by that name – was thus endemic at this point in time due to the GENDER structure, not due to the race structure.

    I understand that. I never said black slaves were raped because they were black, but because they were slaves. Yes, their race was the one that made them slaves, but they were raped not because of their skin colour but because they were slaves.

    Like


  229. Its up to you what definition you choose to use

    No, J, I’d like to be clear on this because your preferred rehtorical dodge is to spout off about “eurocentrism” when you meet an argument you don’t like.

    So if we’re going to discuss whether white women have been situated as inhuman and how that form of inhumanity compares to the situation of black women, I’d like YOU to give the base understanding of humanity which we will be using.

    Be as afro-rific as you like. In fact, please do: I’d very much like to see an “afro-centered” definition of human.

    Like


  230. I would say Black slaves were raped because of their race.
    Its White women who were raped NOT because of their race

    Like


  231. Its up to you what definition you choose to use

    No, J, I’d like to be clear on this because your preferred rehtorical dodge is to spout off about “eurocentrism” when you meet an argument you don’t like.

    So if we’re going to discuss whether white women have been situated as inhuman and how that form of inhumanity compares to the situation of black women, I’d like YOU to give the base understanding of humanity which we will be using.

    Be as afro-rific as you like. In fact, please do: I’d very much like to see an “afro-centered” definition of human.

    With regard to above…

    No…this is one of your common technique to define things.
    You did it with the facism and Marcus Garvey, you did it with the issue of what is rape?

    And now you want to do it with regard to White women being SITUATED AS INHUMAN

    My issue was that White women were never classified alongthe lines of beast of burden, no matter how lowly their status.

    I observe a slight shift on your part here.

    Irrespective of that, are you going to answer your own question??

    Like


  232. This is what I do not understand that Black women of the time mostly complained about??

    They would have complained about both, but being Black ie sub-human they had little or no rights before the courts,
    and none with regard to what you have highlighted.

    In essence the law of the land did not apply to them. And if you read slave codes it is obvious…

    So this is whyI say do not understand your point

    The point is, J, that family was supposedly the woman’s “protection” against the illict use of her sexual and reproductive ability. In legal terms, she was assigned to a family which stipulated which man had control over these functions.

    Slave families were not recognized by law. Thus, even the meager protection which a family afforded a woman was not open to slave women. She could be shifted around as her master desired, “breeded” as her master desired – by himself or with another slave – see her children sold off, the whole nine yards. What few rights a woman had during this period were almost totally dependent on the family as a legal structure and that didn’t exist for slave women.

    It should be noted, however, that lack of a family had no bearing whatsoever on the original point, which was that unless a woman can say “no”, she’s suffering rape when she has sex. A white “free” woman couldn’t say “no” either: there was just a different set of rules applied to who she couldn’t say “no” to. For better or for worse (and those are the precise words of the marriage vow), her sexuality was assigned to one man until he died or left her. A slave woman’s sexuality could be assigned to whomever her owner chose – on a rotating basis, even.

    Like


  233. And I did not address this

    However, I am not cherry-picking, from an African centred perspective. This is what African centred scholars believe.

    Ah, but you originally said “ALL scholars”. That’s a hell of a difference, J.

    This is you placing words in my mouth…

    I wrote…

    “Furthermore the status of Black slaves from the 15 century onward is agreed upon by scholars…”

    You added the word ‘all’ to support your contention of ‘cherry-picking’

    Like


  234. And I still do not understand…and my point is that this did not apply to Black women per se not because their marriages were not recognised.

    It happened because they were Black and conversely, that is the reason why their marriages were not recognised.

    You seem to be putting the ‘cart before the horse’

    Like


  235. @J

    I would say Black slaves were raped because of their race.

    I think it was the other way around. Why were those people slaves? Because they were black. Why were they raped? Because they were slaves.

    Like


  236. No…this is one of your common technique to define things.

    Yeah, because I believe in clear thought and not a morass of ideas that jumps around from place to place as whim takes it and rhetoric demands.

    You seem to think this is a bad thing.

    My issue was that White women were never classified alongthe lines of beast of burden, no matter how lowly their status.

    OK, so you’re classifying “beast” as inhuman, then? This is the standard? J, white women have been classified as breeding beasts on several occasions and used in precisely that manner.

    Like


  237. Furthermore the status of Black slaves from the 15 century onward is agreed upon by scholars…

    Oh, so you only meant SOME scholars, then?

    Shit, J, the concept that the earth is flat is “agreed upon by scholars” in that sense. Why even bring it up if you mean that somewhere out there more than one person who has a library card and a university degree and knows how to write effectively believe this?

    Like


  238. It happened because they were Black and conversely, that is the reason why their marriages were not recognised.

    Sure, but the question isn’t why this happened, J. I AGREE with you as to why it happened. The problem, as I point out here, has to do with marriage law and how it was stripped from slaves, not with rape as defined by people like Jasmin and Abagond.

    Like


  239. With regard to:

    I think it was the other way around. Why were those people slaves? Because they were black. Why were they raped? Because they were slaves.

    I think they were raped because Blacks were viewed as sub-humans.

    Why does being a slave have to preclude rape??

    There are examples on the African continent where this type of slavery did not lead to rape

    Like


  240. I think it was the other way around. Why were those people slaves? Because they were black. Why were they raped? Because they were slaves.

    Here’s what I would say:

    Women were raped because they were women and their sexuality was assigned to men. Slave women’s rapists were masters and other slaves assigned by masters because masters – rather than husbands – were the legal owners of their sexuality.

    Slavery changes WHO raped you, not IF you were raped.

    Like


  241. @Thad

    In the context of this argument, that’s immaterial. Commentators like Jasmin believe that simply HAVING that power is enough. The THREAT of its use – that it could possibly BE used – is aneough to qualify a situation as “rape” in their book.

    Well yes, I do believe using the power was a norm. Rejecting the power was very rare, if present at all.

    You’d have to argue that a “good” slave owner who truly loved his slave but couldn’t – for whatever reason – free her was not raping her if she consented to sex with him.

    I don’t thing here was such thing as a “good slave owner”. That’s the person who owns slaves. I don’t know if it was impossible for owners to free their own slaves, but maybe he could help them escape if he was so good. Or something. What I’m saying is: not all interracial sex was rape. But if you are someone’s slave, even if you are “kind and gentle”, you are using the power and the power imbalance still exists.

    And it was precisely on these two points that many slave women concubines did what they could to pressure their owners and their babies’ fathers. THIS is the “heroism” bit that Toure is on about and with which I agree.

    Well, doing our best to ensure freedom for your children was heroic. I don’t think people disagree with that. I think the problem is view that these women enjoyed their position in some way, or that, whatever they did, their masters were “good guys” somehow. I mean, any woman (I think) would agree on years of rape if that means her child’s freedom. That doesn’t change the fact rapists were rapists. They didn’t even have to be violent during sex or to beat them up.

    Like


  242. There are examples on the African continent where this type of slavery did not lead to rape.

    Bullshit. Name one (always remembering the definition of “rape” that we’re working under here, which means a social situaion in which it’s dangerous for a woman to say “no”).

    Like


  243. I don’t thing here was such thing as a “good slave owner”. That’s the person who owns slaves.

    But there can be “good husbands”, even though these men had the same sort of power imbalance over their wives?

    C’mon, Mira. You’re naturalizing sexism even as you’re using an absolutist humanist standard to attack slavery as immoral.

    I don’t know if it was impossible for owners to free their own slaves, but maybe he could help them escape if he was so good.

    This was apparently what Thomas Jefferson did in the case of two of his children with Sally Hemmings.

    I think the problem is view that these women enjoyed their position in some way, or that, whatever they did, their masters were “good guys” somehow.

    Sure, but Toure neither says nor implies that, which shows how big a knee-jerk issue this whole thing is to some people.

    Like


  244. With regard to:

    “Sure, but the question isn’t why this happened, J. I AGREE with you as to why it happened. The problem, as I point out here, has to do with marriage law and how it was stripped from slaves, not with rape as defined by people like Jasmin and Abagond”

    But I still do not quite understand what you are getting at.

    I understand what you say about the marriage laws etc.

    However, what I am having difficulties understanding is that at no stage from once Blacks were stolen from Africa did they have any rights before the law of land

    So to speak as if they did have access or recourse to the law generally speaking is what is confusing me.

    Like


  245. I think they were raped because Blacks were viewed as sub-humans.

    Blacks were views as sub humans and made into slaves. Then they were raped.

    I am sure you agree rape can, and does happen even in situations when victim’s group isn’t seen as sub-human. Being viewed as sub human is not necessary to become a rape victim.

    Rape was only one of the horrible things that happened to slaves.

    Like


  246. With regard to:

    OK, so you’re classifying “beast” as inhuman, then? This is the standard? J, white women have been classified as breeding beasts on several occasions and used in precisely that manner.

    Please Thad… you are a lecturer and you should know better.

    Like


  247. “Rape was only one of the horrible things that happened to slaves”.

    ..but not necessarily so in parts of Africa, and hence my question to you, which you have not answered.

    Like


  248. @Thad

    But there can be “good husbands”, even though these men had the same sort of power imbalance over their wives?

    I admit, Thad- I can think of a “good husband” who rejects his power. Well, at least in theory I can imagine that situation. If a husband does this, he is still a husband. I can’t, however, think of a slave owner who rejects his power. Because he would not be the slave owner anymore.

    I am aware of the fact my views are subjective, and I am not trying to hide that or escape this fact. Nobody can. Your views are subjective, and so are J’s, Abagond’s or anyone else’s. I thought I made myself clear: this is my opinion and my take on term “rape”.

    This was apparently what Thomas Jefferson did in the case of two of his children with Sally Hemmings.

    But why didn’t he free all of his slaves? I mean, good for him for at least helping his own children, but does that make him into our hypothetical “nice” slave owner?

    Sure, but Toure neither says nor implies that, which shows how big a knee-jerk issue this whole thing is to some people.

    I didn’t get what Toure’s point was, and I wrote that. What I disliked about his writings is the fact he wrote something along the lines of: “most of them were raped, but some of them were brave enough to use sex with masters to get freedom”. Which implies that he thinks those who managed to be “clever enough” to get freedom weren’t raped.

    Like


  249. However, what I am having difficulties understanding is that at no stage from once Blacks were stolen from Africa did they have any rights before the law of land

    So to speak as if they did have access or recourse to the law generally speaking is what is confusing me.

    J, I think you’re confusing yourself because at no time have I said or implied that they had recourse to law except in the most trivial of ways.

    What I am saying is that the destruction of the family was here the crucial point which weighed on slave women qua women, for it was only in family law and custom that women had even partial rights. The “rape” issue is really quite secondary and not even specific to slaves if we define “rape” the way Mira is doing.

    What I’m saying here is that the crime is much deeper and more problematic than the concept of “rape” allows for. Rape was the least of it and the sort of passive power-based coercion that Mira defines as rape was ENDEMIC to male/female relations and not specific to slaves, in any case.

    This whole argument, in fact, sort of reminds me of the “blacks were 3/5ths of a person” meme that pops up among many militants now and again, the complaint being that it was some sort of a mortal insult to black people for the U.S. census to count blacks as 3/5ths of a person.

    It’s a stupid argument and it shows a distressing lack of understanding of what that count was FOR: it was to get the South Congressional seats. Seats blacks would never vote for and whose occupants would do everything in their power to extend slavery. It would have been FAR better for blacks if they’d been counted as ZERO people. In fact, if the southern slave holders could have, they’d have been VERY HAPPY to count blacks as one person for census purposes. Hell, they’d have counted them twice over, if they could’ve because it would have meant more power for the slave holders.

    This is why Abagond’s views on “It was the times” can be dangerous. Sure, such arguments can dismiss yesterday’s inhuman behavior. However, applying today’s standards to yesterday’s situation can EQUALLY well obfuscate yesterday’s inhuman behavior.

    And that’s what’s precisely happening when people talk about rape during slavery and the 3/5ths compromise while presuming that their contemporary moral and political values are universal.

    Like


  250. With regard to:

    Sure, but Toure neither says nor implies that, which shows how big a knee-jerk issue this whole thing is to some people.

    Forgive me here but you are one of those who took the conversation down this route

    Like


  251. “Rape was only one of the horrible things that happened to slaves”.

    ..but not necessarily so in parts of Africa, and hence my question to you, which you have not answered.

    That’s because slavery was different. I thought we were talking about specific kind of slavery (that happened in America, or generally with colonial power against African people), not “slavery in general”.

    I am sorry for not answering. It’s not like I don’t want to. I just didn’t understand there was a question. Could you please ask again?

    Like


  252. J, can you show us an example of slavery in Africa that didn’t involve rape – always keeping in miond the definition of rape that Mira seems to be using?

    Any one example would be fine, J.

    Like


  253. The type of slavery you identify Mira, is the type of slavery of White people against Blacks.

    My position is you cannot separate Black+women from being raped, as if their race has nothing to do with it.

    As I said earlier, you only find this type of specious reasoning when it comes to African/Black peoples history.

    When you read White history all the points and markers are already agreed upon and there is no recourse to such
    specious (here read disingenuous) reasonings.

    Finally any attempt to take away Black from teh issue of teh Black female is essentially an attempt to reduce/ remove the issue of ‘race’.

    Like


  254. With regard to:

    J, I think you’re confusing yourself because at no time have I said or implied that they had recourse to law except in the most trivial of ways. What I am saying is that the destruction of the family was here the crucial point which weighed on slave women qua women”

    However, and the reason why I do not understand because many of the factual points you raised actually took place in Africa before landing to the Western shores.

    So Black women would have lost their families the moment they were captured. They were abused and raped on ships.

    So way before the process you are describing Black women would have known about ie marriage laws and rights and so on

    And this is why I say in your analysis you placed teh cart before the horse

    Like


  255. My position is you cannot separate Black+women from being raped, as if their race has nothing to do with it.

    I never said race has nothing to do with it. It has a lot to do with it. Their race is the reason they became slaves. And the fact they were slaves is the reason they were raped.

    Step 1- You were born as a black female.
    Step 2- Because of your race, you are turned into a slave.
    Step 3- Because you are a slave, your master rapes you.

    Did I answer your question? Did I make myself clear?

    Of course, you are free to disagree. But that’s what I was trying to say.

    Like


  256. Thad, shouldn’t you be marking papers or something?

    Like


  257. J,

    However, what I am having difficulties understanding is that at no stage from once Blacks were stolen from Africa did they have any rights before the law of land

    If a slave escaped and lived in a free state, he was protected under the law. that is if enforced. In 1857 with the Dred Scott decision was the first time it was ruled constitutionally to deny freed Africans their rights as citizens. The law of the land changed then again after slavery with the institution of the Jim Crow laws in the mid 1880’s. Even though the Bill of Rights had extended to give Blacks more rights, the Supreme Court once again made Jim Crow laws constitutional with the Plessey vs. Ferguson ruling.

    Like


  258. With regard to:

    “I never said race has nothing to do with it. It has a lot to do with it. Their race is the reason they became slaves. And the fact they were slaves is the reason they were raped.

    Step 1- You were born as a black female.
    Step 2- Because of your race, you are turned into a slave.
    Step 3- Because you are a slave, your master rapes you.

    Did I answer your question? Did I make myself clear?

    Of course, you are free to disagree. But that’s what I was trying to say.”

    Its at step 3 I think you are trying to take out the issue of race??

    Like


  259. hey Thad, about documented notes from slaves in the USA, slaves were forbiden to read or write.

    Any documentation would be minimal, probably towards the end, but no matter what, very minimal. You practicly couldnt count it as a real description of what was going on, especialy in the 1600’s.

    We also dont have any record of how slaves played drums and danced in the USA except a little bit from congo square, because it was forbiden.

    Do you actualy think that slaves didnt in some way practive their culture on the sly?

    Like


  260. As I said earlier, you only find this type of specious reasoning when it comes to African/Black peoples history.

    When you read White history all the points and markers are already agreed upon and there is no recourse to such
    specious (here read disingenuous) reasonings.

    Sorry, wrong.

    Foucault, for example, made essentially the same argument I’m making now with regards to rape and Europe, homosexuality and Europe, etc.

    Sometimes, J, I think you just spout rhetoric. You have no idea whether or not what you’re saying is true, but you BELIEVE it to be true because it’s so politically attractive for it to be so.

    “Points” and “markers” are hardly “already agreed upon” when it comes to European history: they are vigorously contested on a quotidian basis.

    However, and the reason why I do not understand because many of the factual points you raised actually took place in Africa before landing to the Western shores.

    So Black women would have lost their families the moment they were captured. They were abused and raped on ships.

    Read about what happened to the women in your typical German city during the 30 Years War, J. This sort of behavior wasn’t specific to Europeans in Africa, not by a long shot.

    So way before the process you are describing Black women would have known about ie marriage laws and rights and so on.

    I have no idea what you’re trying to say here. Could you make your point a bit clearer?

    Like


  261. With regard to:

    If a slave escaped and lived in a free state, he was protected under the law. that is if enforced. In 1857 with the Dred Scott decision was the first time it was ruled constitutionally to deny freed Africans their rights as citizens. The law of the land changed then again after slavery with the institution of the Jim Crow laws in the mid 1880’s. Even though the Bill of Rights had extended to give Blacks more rights, the Supreme Court once again made Jim Crow laws constitutional with the Plessey vs. Ferguson ruling.

    It is still the same type of reasoning I am afraid. Even though you have now moved away from women and family rights

    Yes there are examples when Blacks were brought before courts (also here in the UK) and obtained ‘some sort of justice but I do not want to use ‘cherry-picking’ but it does springs to my mind.

    However, the example you cite is only slightly different from African women being abused before coming to Western shores in that it is predicated upon IF THE SLAVE MANAGED TO ESCAPE… This does not bespeak of what his/her life would be like thereafter. There are examples where things were not even good for ‘freed Blacks’ let alone ‘escaped slave’

    Like


  262. Mira sez:
    And the fact they were slaves is the reason they were raped.

    Step 1- You were born as a black female.
    Step 2- Because of your race, you are turned into a slave.
    Step 3- Because you are a slave, your master rapes you.

    Did I answer your question? Did I make myself clear?

    No, because you are a woman, your master rapes you. Your status as a slave is not what gives him the right to rape you, but your status as a woman and his property. If you were white and his wife – and thus equally his property – he would also have the right to rape you.

    The problem here is that women were property, in general. Being a slave simply impacted on who owned you and – crucially – on your right to a family. This was the key issue here, not rape or the supposed protection from it that freedom and/or marriage gave you.

    Like


  263. B.R. sez:

    hey Thad, about documented notes from slaves in the USA, slaves were forbiden to read or write.

    And yet some did indeed read and write. Others had their oral histories written down. Still others had parts of their stories told by white travellers or in courts of law.

    Yes, it’s hard to find sources on this stuff, but not impossible, B.R. People have been writing about it for decades and more material comes to light every year.

    Like


  264. With regard to:

    Sorry, wrong.

    Foucault, for example, made essentially the same argument I’m making now with regards to rape and Europe, homosexuality and Europe, etc.

    Foucault made many arguments. I do not know if I would call them specious or not …

    Unless it is your suggestion that Foucault is to sexuality towards homosexuality = ‘Euro centred’ hi-jacking of African history’

    Like


  265. Foucault made many arguments. I do not know if I would call them specious or not …

    Unless it is your suggestion that Foucault is to sexuality towards homosexuality = ‘Euro centred’ hi-jacking of African history’

    No, J. I bring up Foucault because you claimed that white people don’t look at the sexual history of Europe in the same way that I am looking at the sexual history of slavery. You also claim that the “markers” are not contested and that no one challeges these.

    Foucault notoriously did.

    Btw, his History of Sexuality is not simply about homosexuality.

    Like


  266. And dude, your English is taking a hard turn towards the unintelligible. ‘Sup? Drinking stout while blogging or what?

    Like


  267. J,
    You should stick to history in the UK. I was stating what the “law of the land” was, not how it was practiced.

    It is not my reasoning it was fact. Of course it dispelles your thesis.

    However, what I am having difficulties understanding is that at no stage from once Blacks were stolen from Africa did they have any rights before the law of land

    Like


  268. No what I said was that whenever Whites studies Blacks and/or African either through a deliberate reasoning of dishonesty or through their ontology (existence) they try to minmize race and its impact

    Like


  269. With regard to

    “J,
    You should stick to history in the UK. I was stating what the “law of the land” was, not how it was practiced.

    It is not my reasoning it was fact. Of course it dispelles your thesis.

    However, what I am having difficulties understanding is that at no stage from once Blacks were stolen from Africa did they have any rights before the law of land.”

    Please Hathor don’t be so churlish…Are you seriously suggesting that we should all stick and discuss subjects to where we born. If this being the case then it is not clear why you chose to speak on Fanon…

    …Let me guess you were born in Martinique…

    By the way you are wrong to take up Thad’s argument here. However, its good when people shoot themselves in the foot by their own words and deeds

    Like


  270. No what I said was that whenever Whites studies Blacks and/or African either through a deliberate reasoning of dishonesty or through their ontology (existence) they try to minmize race and its impact.

    Rhetoric, pure and simple.

    There are tons of white scholars out there who center race in their arguments. I am one of them. What you mean to say is “Anyone who doesn’t agree with me is minimizing race and it’s impact”.

    Let’s be real here, J: my claim regarding rape has nothing to do with the impact of race on slavery. In fact – as I’ve said several times – properly understanding what the situation was back then makes for am even more “impactful” picture of rtace and slavery, not less of one.

    Like


  271. African Slavery

    http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=V4ZIL4BlVagC&dq=Good+treatment+of+African+slaves+pre-colonial+africa&printsec=frontcover&source=in&hl=en&ei=KwacS7jFLY3w0wTR_7jZAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11&ved=0CDAQ6AEwCg#v=onepage&q=&f=false

    p5

    refers in essence to what I was saying about African slavery.

    If I am not presumptuous here, I will assume that you do not know much on the matter of African slavery by the question you pose.

    And finally ‘are you going to answer your own question Thad?

    Like


  272. With regard to:

    Rhetoric, pure and simple.

    There are tons of white scholars out there who center race in their arguments. I am one of them. What you mean to say is “Anyone who doesn’t agree with me is minimizing race and it’s impact”.

    I wish I could say that there are many White scholars who think like African centred perspectives – but there are very few.

    Personally from our dialogue here, I would not say you are one and I submit humbly, without any malice. I really fear for your Black students in Brazil, if you have any…

    Like


  273. To J:

    Thanks…However, I humbly submit that your knowledge of Black/African history and/or slavery is NOT in keeping with your chosen subject of Biology.

    Yes, I am sure that is true. That said where do you find fault in my post here:

    https://abagond.wordpress.com/2010/03/10/toure-on-sexually-heroic-slave-women/#comment-42218

    Arrghh.. I see I left out a word again…

    Like


  274. Thanks Uncle Milton!!

    I would have to re-read your post, and give you an answer,
    but I am not sure it is relevant to the discussion we are having.

    If I do pass on your question, then please forgive me here.

    Like


  275. Uncle Milton, what field of biology did you study? I would have thought you were a historian.

    Like


  276. J asks:
    And finally ‘are you going to answer your own question Thad?

    You get me a definition of “humanity” that you won’t dodge later as being “too eurocentric” and I’ll get right on that answer, J.

    Otherwise what’s the point?

    I’ll say “Well, here’s an example of white women being instituionally treated as if they weren’t human” and you’ll come straight back with “Oh, but that’s because you’ve defined ‘humanity’ in terms with your own eurocentric perspective”.

    Amirite? 😀

    Like


  277. J:

    What context I know about the Toure tweets is given in the post – which is not much, admittedly. But I agree that the subject was probably about black men dating and marrying outside the race. The bit about black women and slave masters seemed to be an attempt to derail the conversation. As he said himself, he went too far.

    Like


  278. With regard to:

    “You get me a definition of “humanity” that you won’t dodge later as being “too eurocentric” and I’ll get right on that answer, J. ”

    Forgive me here just consider it as an essay, just like you would set to your students in a classroom environment…The only difference is that you are answering the question??

    You do me a dis-service, if you think I would not understand your arguments, irrespective of whether I agree with them or not…

    Like


  279. Thanks Abagond…

    Like


  280. By the way, J, “African Slavery” does not deal with whether or not women were raped on page 5. It DOES warn readers on page 5 – in no uncertain terms – to avoid presuming that African slavery was more “benign” than western slavery.

    You read that part, I’m assuming?

    Note that page 8 has a very clear outline of how women’s sexuality was bought and traded among men of the Goba and Suku peoples. The rest of the chapter is quite clear that “slave” women’s sexuality was bought and controlled by the buying group, not by herself. In fact, on page 31, the authors state that slave women were prefered as mothers in many matrilineal societies because their children came with no ties to the mother’s people, being that the woman’s reproductive capacity was wholly the property of her owner. Such marriages were great, from the master’s perspective, because they wholly short-circuited African familial law and custom. A slave bride could be divorced at will. She had, effectively, no rights and CERTAINLY had no individual control over her sexuality. If she refused sex with her master, she could be beaten and even killed. Her owners had no responsabilities to her via custom or law and that, in fact, was one of the reasons slave wives were so popular in some African societies.

    I don’t know why you brought this book up, J. It reinforces my point that rape was a constituitive part of sexual relations, both in and out of slavery and shows that this was the case even in Africa.

    Tell the truth, friend: you just googled this book up without even reading it. 😀

    J, seriously: your views on African cultures seem to be more romantic than historical in nature. For all your talk about your “afrocentric view”, you really don’t seem to know much about African histroy, cultures or societies. For you to pull African Slavery up as some sort of proof of how slave women in Africa had a sexual autonomy which they lacked in the New World shows you don’t even giuve the books you cite as “afrocentric” the courtesy of a read through. Not even a skim, J.

    Like


  281. I think African Slavery would be a very good book for you or for anyone on this site to read, in fact, J. It would do a lot to prefurate many myths. Both the myth that African slavery was supposedly “better” than the western version and the myth that African slavery was essentially the same thing as Western chattel slavery are destroyed by this book.

    Go read it, folks!

    Like


  282. Forgive me here just consider it as an essay, just like you would set to your students in a classroom environment…The only difference is that you are answering the question??

    You do me a dis-service, if you think I would not understand your arguments, irrespective of whether I agree with them or not…

    J, “it’s not afrocentric” is your stock response to any argument I make, so I think I’m justified in asking you for a definition of humanity you’ll accept beforehand. To use your essay metaphor, a student in the same position would definitely be justified in asking for the same.

    Like


  283. @J

    Its at step 3 I think you are trying to take out the issue of race??

    No. Because steps 1 and 2 lead to step 3. You are slave because you are black. This (being black) means your master sees you as less than human and can do horrible things to you. Rape is only one of them.

    @Thad

    If you were white and his wife – and thus equally his property – he would also have the right to rape you.

    Yes. Being a rape victim doesn’t automatically means you are black, or slave. However, if you are white woman, your master (or should we call him husband?) doesn’t have a right to sell you or do many horrible things he can do to his slaves. You are not viewed as sub human. You are a second class citizen, yes. But you are consider human. You are mother of his sons. This brings you some position in society and some privilege. His black slave doesn’t have anything of it.

    So no, Thad, I am not saying it’s all about rape. Master/slave rape was only one oppression mechanism during the slave days.

    Like


  284. I cited the book to show the difference between African slavery and Western slavery.

    It highlights the quintessential differences and also they did not form a class in themselves, as they did in the Americas.

    Its a pity that you did not make the difference between
    autochnous cultures and those imposed from outside as in
    Islam. This also is one of the pitfalls of a euro-centred approach.

    And just one other thing, which I observe as a tactic of yours.

    You ask for evidence, when the evidence is given by way of a quote or a book. You often go scouting the rest of the book for contrary evidence as if the evidence/proposition is incorrect.

    I cite what I know from my time studying African history. Its not on every occasion I am going to be able to retrieve a quote, or where I know that piece of information.

    However, be that as it may…

    Rape does not need to preclude slavery…

    I hope this is all clear since I am multi-tasking and you know where what we men are like ha ah aha

    Like


  285. No Mira

    I am afraid your argument is not logical because in step three. There is no allusion to race played in the equation

    Step 1- You were born as a black female.
    Step 2- Because of your race, you are turned into a slave.
    Step 3- Because you are a slave, your master rapes you.

    Unless you add

    “Because you are a BLACK slave, your master rapes you.

    This may help to shed light on it hopefully:

    http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/ded_ind.html

    Like


  286. No Thad,

    Yo arrogantly assume that your position is correct, what I do is say that are different ‘perspectives’.

    Although I may not agree with the perspectives I can understand them and this is why I am able to have a dialogue with No_Slappz for instance.

    The problem is in my humble opinion is that you think you are correct – as many have said of you here, from a variety of differing backgrounds.

    And when someone offers another perspective. You take it in the wrong way.

    As I said and I say it agin, I am seriously concerned for your Black students, if you have any, and I am saying this agin humbly

    This is not how you teach students, or not when I was a round.

    You get them to study different sides of the debates,
    attempt to understand it, think critically about what is being said and so forth.

    You do not ask them to play ‘mind games’ like you give me your definition..

    All we are discussing is ‘perspectives’ or the ‘historical tool’ to understand history.

    You are utilising a Euro-centred approach that you cannot see beyond.

    You not aware of newer modes of learning like African centred and or Women Studies perspective and analysis.

    The ‘tools’ that you use to study history will produce a different outcome by the very nature of those tools.

    Just like there are different effect if you use a sledgehammer to crack a nut or if you can bite and crack it with your teeth.

    Like


  287. And once again are you goingto answer your own question he eh ehe ehe eh???

    Like


  288. J, I wasn’t making a logical argument (All blondes are stupid. Mira is blonde. Means Mira is stupid). I was just trying to present how the problem went (first you were born black and female, and consequence is that you are made into a slave. The consequence of being a female slave is, among other things, to be raped).

    Like


  289. However, if you are white woman, your master (or should we call him husband?)

    Why? The marriage vows at the time as well as the law called him “master”. A white wive’s servitude had many differences from a black slave’s but one of those differences was NOT the legal right to withhold sex from her master.

    Given that’s what the discussion is about, why pretty it up? The legal basis for the relationship was not love and reciprocal rights, no matter what it might actually be in fact.

    You are not viewed as sub human.

    Mira, surely you are aware of the fact that women were indeed understood to be underevolved by many scientific racists. Furthermore, no one argued for the rights of “humanity” back then. “Humanity” is a mid-20th century concept. Back then, they talked about the “Rights of MAN” and they most definitely meant MAN. As in “human being with a penis”. I defy you to find a single mention of humanity in any document proiduced, say, by the French or American revolutions and their follow-on governments. Rights of Man, Mira. Man. If you were a woman, your rights weren’t even on the table.

    Now, insofar as most of those rights of MAN are what are now encoded as “the rights of humanity” and insofar as women were excluded from most of them, then yes indeed you can very much say that, to the degree that 18th and 19th century people concieved of “humanity”, women were not a part of it. If you want to take the concept of humanity back to the 18th century, then that wopuld be the only logical way to see things.

    You make the point that white women had rights which black slaves didn’t. I agree with that, but that’s not what’s at issue here. My point never has been that white women’s experience and black slaves’ experience were globally the same. What we are talking about is this: did free white women have sexual autonomy when compared to black slave women? Were they free to say “no”? And no, they weren’t. On this point, they were not substantially different, legally or practically, from black slave women.

    Your point that a white woman was the mother of a white man’s sons and thus due some privilege is good, but it doesn’t address the issue of sexual autonomy at all. In fact, it rather reinforces what I wrote above about families. It was the existence of the family which gave women any status which they might have at this time and THAT was one thing slaves were not allowed to have, legally speaking. THAT is the key difference between white women’s privilege vis-a-vis black slave women and not some sort of legally defined control over their sexuality vs. rape via coercion. Rape via coercion was a fact of life for all women during this period.

    Like


  290. Well I have to say this is the first time you have qualified your position.

    The consequence of being a female slave is, among other things, to be raped

    What I find strange is I do not really see much difference between Thad and yourself.

    Like


  291. And even this proviso is still inadequate because it is speaking of Western slavery as opposed to the slavery practised on The African continent and not impacted upon by ‘outside forces’ like Islam etc…

    Like


  292. What I find strange is I do not really see much difference between Thad and yourself.

    You mean, apart from us being of different genders, ethnic backgrounds, nationalities, etc. I hope I don’t seem as arrogant as Thad, though (sorry, Thad).

    Oh, you mean in this argument?

    As far as I can tell, Thad and I do agree on two things: 1) Rape is not something that happened only to black slave women and 2) Rape should not be used as an argument in political discussions. That’s all.

    Like


  293. I think you both caught up in the same White euro-centred argument.

    And what I said earlier when I apologised. you are coming very close to it, inadvertently or otherwise.

    I am not going to go into it – nor do I really want to – but you would have to read Black Feminism and/or People of Color Feminism vis-a-vis White Feminism.

    Like


  294. @Thad

    Why? The marriage vows at the time as well as the law called him “master”.

    Because I was referring to spouse rape or whatever you call it. Not a random white guy raping a random white woman. That why I wrote husband.

    Mira, surely you are aware of the fact that women were indeed understood to be underevolved by many scientific racists.

    Actually, no, I wasn’t talking about modern meaning of the word “human”. I admit, my problem is that I often take examples that might not be the most appropriate ones. They are often about Ancient Greece.

    So while women were not consider citizens or people, they were not the same as slaves (or foreigners). For some reason, I thought that is, more or less, the position women held in colonial society. They were not slaves and they did have some rights- but sexual freedom wasn’t one of them.

    But Thad, why are we still talking about white women? It’s not what this post is about.

    Like


  295. @J

    I think you both caught up in the same White euro-centred argument.

    I think we both up in the argument of our respective disciplines.

    I do believe our disciplines teach us what kind of questions to ask. As far as I can tell from Thad’s answers, I fail at this argument.

    As for Eurocentric… This might be the case, but I always see it as the opposite of Amerocentric (is that even a word?) position if thinking. Remember, J, I might be white, but my culture is not a colonial one. Historically, people of my culture were slaves, not masters. Which means my culture is shaped from a position of the oppressed. When I start questioning what “rape” is or what “they raped us” argument means in terms of shaping people’s collective identity, I don’t do that to attack black people or to make American slavery seem less horrible than it actually was.

    You are free to disagree with me, of course. But please bare in mind I am not trying to excuse whites (why would I do that?) or to make slavery seem like a minor accident that didn’t really hurt people that much.

    And what I said earlier when I apologised. you are coming very close to it, inadvertently or otherwise.

    Close to what? Thad or eurocentric view?

    I am not going to go into it – nor do I really want to – but you would have to read Black Feminism and/or People of Color Feminism vis-a-vis White Feminism.

    Fair enough. I’ll try to find that book, but I am not sure if it’s available where I live. There might be some Google previews to get at least a basic picture?

    Like


  296. J sez:

    And even this proviso is still inadequate because it is speaking of Western slavery as opposed to the slavery practised on The African continent and not impacted upon by ‘outside forces’ like Islam etc…

    The book YOU YOURSELF cited says otherwise, J. It cites control over slave women’s sexuality as one of the PRIMARY reasons why women are enslaved by matrifocal (i.e. non-Islamic) African societies.

    Like


  297. I think you both caught up in the same White euro-centred argument.

    And what would that argument be, precisely J? Or is this simply another deployment of rhetoric on your part?

    Like


  298. Its not a deployment I can ‘eurocentric’ arguments all day long, havingbeen born and raised in it.

    However, what you cannot do its opposite is to argue from
    an African centred perspective.

    This is essentially our difference.

    Like


  299. Because I was referring to spouse rape or whatever you call it. Not a random white guy raping a random white woman. That why I wrote husband.

    Granted, but random white guys weren’t allowed to rape slaves, either. In fact HURTING another slave master’s property was indeed one of the few ways a white guy could get jailed or fined for doing something to a slave.

    So while women were not consider citizens or people, they were not the same as slaves (or foreigners).

    Right, but my point is not that they WERE the same.

    You understand this, correct? Because it seems as if you don’t.

    But Thad, why are we still talking about white women? It’s not what this post is about.

    Because the outrage over Toure’s comments has to do with the supposed fact that black women were raped in slavery by white men – different from what supposedly happened to white women.

    Historically, people of my culture were slaves, not masters.

    Good point, Mira. In fact, “Slav” is the root word of “slave” in English, but I guess J’s “afrocentrism” doesn’t allow him to recall that simple fact.

    Like


  300. By the way J, I’m posting under my own name about topics that I’ve done a lot of reading and thinking about. I should HOPE that I would find my comments to be correct.

    As for your crocodile tears about my students, feel free to post your feelings on my blog, which several of my students follow. Be aware, however, that some of the African students are especially sensitive to gringos who claim to be “afrocentric” and yet who haven’t managed to tuck any substantive study of African history into their busy intellectual agendas.

    Like


  301. However, what you cannot do its opposite is to argue from an African centred perspective.

    Which you have never once done here, J. Not once. Unless by “afrocentric” you mean “whatever I feel is correct is afrocentric”.

    Your discussions on the topic so far have been based on EUROPEAN notions of diffusionism, not anything that could remotely be classifed as an indigenous African viewpoint.

    Like


  302. Ok, I will leave the conversation there…

    It may also be best for this post and Abagond too…

    Like


  303. J,

    I think you are delusional.

    Like


  304. Sorry Mira

    I am seeing a crossrange of thinking from you to Thad, to No_Slappz, which in essence is the same.

    And from a Black Nationalist perspective this raises the very important question of what is the role of the ‘White liberal’ in history, irrespective if you are from a colonial society

    Like


  305. With regard to:

    J,

    I think you are delusional.

    Is that why you found it necessary to fall for the bait and come on here and defend that you are no that BSWM caricature, even when your name was not called.

    Hmm. I think that approaches sounds more delusional don’t you think…??

    Oh I forgot let me guess you come from Martinique and you use intitution to guess to I was referring to you….

    Yeahhhh??

    Like


  306. This dude may be a journalist, but nowadays, journalists don’t ask the questions that need to be asked, nor will they probe into truths instead of serving up half-baked truths, propaganda, and lies.

    When it comes to the destruction of POC, there are people, who will try to minimize it as if it’s no big deal while we are told about how another cute white girl goes missing, and it’s a cause for concern.

    Like


  307. Then you’re simply not paying attention to what are three entirely different positions, J. You’re casting them as the same because you either can’t – or don’t want to – see the extremely large differences between the three.

    No_Slappz thinks that there wasn’t much sexual abuse going on at all.

    Both Mira and I think that there was a lot of it. Mira thinks it was caused mostly by slavery of Africans, I think it was caused caused mostly by a more general enslavement of women. No_Slappz doesn’t believe it happened at all.

    If you can show me any one single thread that makes those three quite distinct positions “essentially the same”, I will happily shut up and be on my merry.

    Like


  308. With regard to:

    By the way J, I’m posting under my own name about topics that I’ve done a lot of reading and thinking about. I should HOPE that I would find my comments to be correct.

    As for your crocodile tears about my students, feel free to post your feelings on my blog, which several of my students follow. Be aware, however, that some of the African students are especially sensitive to GRINGOS who claim to be “AFROCENTRIC” AND YET WHO HAVEN’T MANAGED TO TUCK ANY SUBSTANTIVE STUDY OF HISTORY INTO THEIR BUSY INTELLECTUAL IDEAS.

    1. Can you clarify here what is the definition of a ‘Gringo’ and how does it apply to a person of African descent in the UK??

    2. Can you confirm that your students who you refer to as African have ‘problems’ (you can use any other adjective you like at this point) against Afrocentric scholars in the US?? For this dialogue can you specifically name these Black historians/academic etc

    Like


  309. In spite of your failure to attempt to answer your own question that you can demonstrate in history where Whites have been classified as sub-human vis-a-vis Black people.

    This is a very important issue you raised, but yet having problems dealing with..

    With regard to your question Thad, if one has a understanding of White global supremacy that goes beyond merely a dicussion of ‘racism in the world’ issues involved. Then the issue and the role of the ‘White liberal’ falls therein.

    As I had said earlier I had closed the subject matter, but I just would like to add…

    I thought No_Slappz position was that irrespective of the rape and the abuse in the past. It is of no help to modern day U.S and the argument should therefore be moved forward to NOW, since the matter is unhelpful,and it is being merely used as a tool to ‘score points’. This is his position more or less…

    No_Slappz please feel free to come forward if you feel if I have mis-represented your views ha ha…

    If I haven’t mis-represented your views more or less then I think it reveals what I said about being able to understand peoples’ perspective and then should give you encouragement that I will be able to understand what you have to say about White females being sub-human vis-a-vis Blacks…

    You had better start praying that No_Slappz comes out in your favour ha ha ha ha ha ha

    Like


  310. Thad, something just doesnt sit straight with me by your implicaton that it was more enslavement of women.

    I dont think all white women were forced to get married , and there was still an etiquete of respect even if the women had to know their place. The deep south was known for a code of respect for its white women.

    Black slave women were not given any code of respect. What got passed down after slavery in the southern USA was very similar to Freyres discription of how the white Brazilian would have his first sex with a black woman (as you know in his preface he was just showing how huge the shadow of the Afro Brazilian was in shaping Brazil).

    That pushes the concept of black women were regulated as the women you go to for sex behind the woodshed. These are definitly reminants of master slave mentality and how it relates to sex and how to perceive what the black woman stood for in these peoples minds.White women were not subjected to this type charactorisation.

    And, as you admit, there isnt enough documentation of what slave life and feelings was really like, it makes an academic position about this related to documentation, inadequite. Which is my objection to giving academia the be all know all green light on anything . Not that I dont think academia isnt valuable, it is, very much so,it just doesnt cover all the basis and can have great falacies (how many angeles can you fit on the head of a pin).

    The 1600’s is one huge murky grey area that we really dont have much idea at all about the master slave inner relationshops and , rape of black women.This is 5 to 6 generations that have to be subjected to an unhuman condition passed down in a way that could end up to a resignation that in the 6 or 7th generation could be perceived as something it is not.The same as a guy in prison being resigned that he is going to have to give in to a brute with the neck the size of his thigh.He isnt going to resist, maybe even be amicable after a while, but, he knows he has been raped.

    Just like we dont know how black slaves in North America retained their culture as it was banned out right. Yet it came spilling out in the jazz era, all these rhythms and dances. They didnt come out of thin air, black slaves in one way or the other kept their culture, in some way hidden.

    And the nature of master to slave black woman is also hidden in an ugly murky reality that is anything like what the white woman would have to endure.

    Like


  311. This is a very good analysis B.R. I think you have understood the quintessential argument of the debate.

    Do forgive me here if I am ‘nit-picking’ (as well as finding tautologiesI do like to do this also he he he).

    There is just one very very little bit that SOME feminist and by that I mean the ones analysing their own (White western society solely) might disagree but I do not wish to ‘derail’ which I believe is an excellent post (forgive the pun here because in England B.R represents British Rail and they have been known for providing a very bad service ha ha ha)…

    Like


  312. I read your comments Uncle Milton, It was not as painful as I thought it would be ha ha.

    You make some interesting points.

    I am not sure if I can answer your question though, or the implied one though. There are too many factors though
    like the life expectancy rates of slaves, new imports from Africa to replace the existing ones, Blacks mixing with Native Americans etc etc etc

    I am not even quite sure of how you can properly link the present population with the past (ie like a formula), and plus I do not live in the U.S.??

    There is also another important factor to all of this.

    Sometimes the very questions we pick up and choose and think may be valid, is in fact at the heart of the problem.

    And we can do trillions of deductive processes and reach the right conclusions but because and since the original premise in itself is ‘faulty’, the conclusion (more than likely) will be wrong and/or move you from the essence and into all kinds of spurious arguments

    Like


  313. j, you wrote:

    “I thought No_Slappz position was that irrespective of the rape and the abuse in the past.”

    As I stated, there is no doubt black female slaves were sexually coerced by slave-owners or others in the slave trade. That ended 150 years ago. Thus, quibbling about the magnitude of the sexual coercion, especially without any data about resulting pregnancies, is a red herring.

    As I stated, to debate this issue today is nothing more than a gambit to avoid an examination and development of solutions for the substantial problems that afflict blacks worldwide — now.

    Life in the US today is NOT a function of a past that ended 150 years ago. Unless, of course, blacks today believe they can solve their problems by claiming that victimization is genetically transmissible from one generation to the next.

    You wrote:

    “It is of no help to modern day U.S and the argument should therefore be moved forward to NOW, since the matter is unhelpful,and it is being merely used as a tool to ’score points’. This is his position more or less…”

    More or less. More accurately, it is no help to today’s blacks to quibble about the past. Slaves were raped. We know. Rape is a tool of invading armies. Sexual coercion is real. Sexual terror is real. It has been that way since the first invasion. It is that way in Africa today.

    Unfortunately, the problems and bad practices of the past are still part of black life in the world today. Hence, the notion that blacks are slow learners is easy to accept.

    As always, if there were ONE example in the world of a successful black nation, whites would develop a more hopeful attitude. But for all the effort and cash that has been invested, little has been achieved.

    Since oil is abundant in Nigeria, it is a likely candidate for success. As I have said, it should be the Norway of Africa. Instead, it is a mess, where half the population is still waiting for indoor plumbing and electricity.

    Nigeria is not even close to being the Venezuela of Africa. But Nigeria has the basis for financing a leap from its benighted state to modernity. Why is it such a failure?

    Like


  314. Well thank you for your response No_Slappz

    Like


  315. @J

    Sorry Mira

    I am seeing a crossrange of thinking from you to Thad, to No_Slappz, which in essence is the same.

    Luckily, I don’t see anything similar to No_Slappz’s posts in my writings. You might not like both of them, which is ok. But just because you don’t like them it doesn’t make them the same.

    And from a Black Nationalist perspective this raises the very important question of what is the role of the ‘White liberal’ in history, irrespective if you are from a colonial society.

    I am not a liberal.

    I might be white, but it seems you are projecting your own views of white to the all white societies on Earth. There’s no white supremacy and colonialism on the Balkans. We were the one who were enslaved. We were never masters. Then again, “slavery” might not be the best word here, because it was different- but historically, people of Balkans were the one who had to fight the oppressor. This gives you a completely different perspective, J. For example, when I am saying that “rape argument” is not the best thing to use in political discussions, I am not saying that from white liberal (master guilt or whatever) point of view, I am saying that from the enslaved point of view.

    If you believe “all blacks are the same” is not a correct way of thinking, “all whites are the same” isn’t either. If you fail to see the difference you are making communication impossible.

    I might say, for example, that you and No_Slappz are posting from the same positions. Both of you are westerners and therefore members of the same culture. You share similar positions and views. Someone like you could never understand what is like to be a member of a small ethnic group, because you are both privileged westerners. Etc, etc. (However, I know this is not the case).

    You might be a Black Nationalist which I respect, but in that case you might want to do your best to really use Afrocentric positions, not Eurocentric, which you often do. What I’m saying is, you might know much about Afrocentrism, but you don’t know enough about what you call “Eurocentric”. If you hate Eurocentric views (and I understand why you might hate them- I am not a fan of Eurocentric view either), you must stop applying them yourself.

    What I’m saying is: many of your views are Eurocentic. Many Afrocentric scholars make this mistake. They might say Africa, not Europe, was cradle of today’s significant civilizations (western civilization included). Good. However, it doesn’t (just like Eurocentric views don’t) help us get a radically different view of the world. Why is one civilization dominant in one moment? Why is it so important for us, today, to seek for origins of western civilization? Why do racism still exist? Etc etc (just a few examples)

    I was very interested in Afrocentrism (well, I still am) but I was a bit disappointed when I realized it doesn’t really give us a new way of thinking and solving problems.

    Now, I respect you as a commenter and I do believe you have a lot of smart and interesting things to say. You find good reading that help me understand problems with race better and I really appreciate that. That’s why I don’t want- no other way to say it- fight with you. Ok, “fight” might be a wrong word, but I hope you get what I’m saying.

    So, in my reply to B.R., let me present my views on the problem once again. MY VIEWS (no Thad’s or anyone elses), in hope I could make myself clear this time.

    @B.R.

    I dont think all white women were forced to get married , and there was still an etiquete of respect even if the women had to know their place. The deep south was known for a code of respect for its white women.

    Black slave women were not given any code of respect.

    Of course. That’s why slaves (male or female) were not seen as human, while women were seen as “women”- inferior and second class citizens. There’s a huge difference.

    When did I say there wasn’t a difference?

    All I said a man could legally rape his own wife (it was not even regarded as rape), because she didn’t have sexual rights.

    Rape, define it any way you like, is something that happens in many situations and is in no way restricted to slave/master relationship (it can happen in many situations, especially when there is a huge power imbalance. It can happen on dates, in marriage, in prison, in war, etc). The mechanism behind these assaults is not the same (date rape doesn’t work with same mechanisms as the war rape, for example).

    However, I don’t know how that has anything to do with master on slave rape during the slave days. I don’t know how this fact suddenly makes raping of slaves less horrible. Non-slave rape is not even the topic of this post, and I am sorry it even got mentioned (I wanted to answer Thad’s question). So yes, when it comes to it, I am guilty as charged.

    People correctly stated in the previous post: rape was not something that defines black people, but it is something that was happening during the slavery- something we need to talk about.

    Like


  316. Just to say Mira,

    It is not an issue of whether I like your argument or not, or anybodys elses argument here.

    Liking does not even come into it. Its a case of trying to understand what the facts are. So, and I see it on this board here viz. often disagreeing with others is the source of contention and not the facts per se.

    Fortunately, I don’t fall into this category, if a reasonable argument can be demonstrated to prove I am wrong. Then no matter how much I may hate being so. It is still not going to change the truths or the facts.

    With regard to the projection of racism to Whites. There is a school of thought with theory and analysis that suggest this. And hence the term ‘White global supremacy’.

    However, I would not expect you to be conversant with the arguments in that school, and the position they advocate, irrespective of whether it is correct or not??

    My concern is that is not really appropriate to be comparing Black female to White women during the slave era.

    Yes White women had a lowly status but many White women were also complicit in the subjugation of Blacks both male and female.

    And also I would like to add that I am fully aware of White female abolitionist and their role off trying to get rid of slavery.

    There is an annoying thing, and here No_Slappz did not fall into this trap of trying to compare the Black experience with some other White group in society.

    And I suspect this is why the two other posters on another conversation hinted that they are tired of people comparing homosexuals to Black people.

    This does not mean that comparisons cannot be made and/or contrasted. What it means we have to be very careful when we do so, since it can easily lead to condescenion in my opinion.

    And a large part of this thread I beleive has fallen into this category.

    I am not the type usually to say ‘how did the conversation get this way’, mainly due to a respect for other posters here.

    However, in this instance its not clear – even though I do know how it happened. How this became a subject of ‘what is rape etc and the denial of the family’ helped to contribute to the problem of women from this time period in history (just paraphrasing here)??

    When the subject is in essence a Black mane trying to justify his inter-racial dating and/or at the very least a Black man who lost his professionalism because a raw nerve had been hit etc

    Like


  317. @J

    It is not an issue of whether I like your argument or not, or anybodys elses argument here.

    I know, I know. I guess I reacted emotionally, because it looked for a moment you and I are completely missing the point of each other’s posts (comparison with no_slappz’s posts didn’t help me calm down).

    With regard to the projection of racism to Whites. There is a school of thought with theory and analysis that suggest this. And hence the term ‘White global supremacy’.

    I know about white global supremacy, but you must understand it’s impossible to see it as something you automatically gain with being born Caucasian. There are many Caucasian cultures that do not share the anglo-saxon history of colonialism. Some Caucasians are not even regarded as white. Their views on racism, colonialism, slavery, etc. might be different.

    However, I would not expect you to be conversant with the arguments in that school, and the position they advocate, irrespective of whether it is correct or not??

    I am sorry, I didn’t understand this. What are you trying to say>

    My concern is that is not really appropriate to be comparing Black female to White women during the slave era.

    Of course it isn’t. I am not sure if you read my posts. I wasn’t comparing white women and black women. I was trying to explain Thad what term “rape” means to me. He asked me if I think sex between spouses was rape. I said yes, I do see that as a rape. End of story.

    Yes White women had a lowly status but many White women were also complicit in the subjugation of Blacks both male and female.

    Frankly, I don’t think white women, in general, had different views on black people. They saw them the same way white men saw them- as less than human. I believe they saw themselves superior than slaves and I don’t think they saw white men as the global problem for everybody. In short, they saw themselves as superior to slaves.

    And also I would like to add that I am fully aware of White female abolitionist and their role off trying to get rid of slavery.

    I know nothing about white female abolitionists.

    And a large part of this thread I beleive has fallen into this category.

    However, in this instance its not clear – even though I do know how it happened. How this became a subject of ‘what is rape etc and the denial of the family’ helped to contribute to the problem of women from this time period in history (just paraphrasing here)??

    I agree. It did go way too far. I am sorry for contributing to off topic. This post isn’t about definition of term rape or white women.

    Like


  318. And….

    Thank you for the kind words Mira…we are all learning here…Those who have been imbibed with the ‘humility of spirit’ to do so’

    Like


  319. Thanks, J. You’re right, we are all learning here. 🙂 I know I learned a lot and while I won’t pretend I now understand how racism work, I sure know more than before. 🙂

    Like


  320. There’s no need for apologises Mira…

    You were not the source to initially cause the conversation to end up this way.

    This is why I tried to stop it from becoming so early on – but to no avail – ha ha ha. When I posted in response to a commentator:

    “This does not seem to be the essence of Toure’s argument – well at least from the words on this page

    Like


  321. Ok, back to Toure, then.

    I read the post but I didn’t understand what he was trying to do. Abagond said the whole thing was a derailing tactic. Ok. I get that. His wife is white. For some reason, he sees that as a problem (in a way he believes others see it as a problem). So he starts talking about black female slaves…

    There are a few things I don’t understand.

    They are absolutely not “ho’s.” They’re sexually heroic. They’re self-liberating by any means necessary.

    So, the white penis should’ve gotten an Image Award this weekend? [Funny. But no.]

    ???

    Like


  322. To justify his inter-racial dating…Here it seems that if he was in a heated conversation with someone else. I think a woman who had him ‘cornered’ on this issue.

    So he goes on to say that the Black slaves who went with the slavemaster did so by their own choice. They were not ho’s (ie prostitutes), here read nobody forced them.

    For if they had forced them then his argument would have been shot down.

    As a result because some Black women went with the slavemaster during slavery, there is nothing wrong with him being married to a White women.

    And this is the justification he uses to the person he is conversing with

    Since as he says ‘politics can make strange bedfellows’ (or something like that, paraphrasing)

    As for reference to the sexual organ I am not sure about that either…Anybody else???

    I had given an anlaysis of what I believed was going on this conversation yesterday (if you want to take a loo scroll up). You might be able to shed some more insights and/or even corrections

    Like


  323. Thanks for the explanation!

    I don’t remember your post… Will look up.

    They were not ho’s (ie prostitutes), here read nobody forced them.

    Well, true, they weren’t prostitutes. But that doesn’t mean nobody forced them to sleep with white men. They had no choice. They were forced. If some of them managed to make slave owners free their children or something like that, it was heroic. But that doesn’t change the fact they were raped.

    As a result because some Black women went with the slavemaster during slavery, there is nothing wrong with him being married to a White women.

    First of all, his wife didn’t force him into marriage (I assume), and he is not his wife’s slave. So there’s no similarity between these two situations.

    Second of all, black women were raped and didn’t choose white masters. They were not free to make a choice.

    Third of all- and I am aware not everybody agree with me here- what happened during the slave days should not be used as and excuse or an argument on someone’s choice of spouse today.

    I support interracial relationships but this guy is obviously feeling some guilt about it.

    Like


  324. laromana,

    How do you know that he wasn’t attracted to her? Has anyone asked him? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as many on this blog have said. Are all 89 year olds unattractive in your book? Even assuming he wasn’t attracted to her, he would be an outlier. Most (note, I said most) sexual assaults are perpetrated on women near their peak level of sexual attractiveness. This is statistical reality. This is why younger women are much more likely to be raped than older women.

    Like


  325. Mira,

    This may be a stretch, but I think Toure’s logic was to implicate he was not a traitor to his race. Since he married who he did, he didn’t need to defend his reasons, but sometime the sting of race traitor can hurt for many more reasons than anything that stated in the next post.

    I think he was giving an example which was challenging the notion of”How can you date or marry a white person, when their men raped our women during slavery? You are betraying Black women and the race by re-enforcing the white supremacist patriarchy.” Of course it might not be said in those words, but I am sure you have seen the arguments here.

    Like


  326. R.R. says,
    laromana,

    [Question RR asked in response to hearing about a young deviant RAPING an 89 year old grandmother he had known since childhood.]

    How do you know that he wasn’t attracted to her? Has anyone asked him? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as many on this blog have said. Are all 89 year olds unattractive in your book?

    If you’re SERIOUS about this question, you have more WRONG with you than having a WARPED/DISMISSIVE attitude about BW who were victims of their WHITE SLAVE MASTER/RAPISTS.

    Regardless of the attempts of SOME to DERAIL this topic, the FACT remains that the INHUMANE/CRIMINAL/SAVAGE treatment of BW under slavery/Jim Crow is at the heart of the RACISM/HATE BW have ALWAYS endured in America and the MANY ANTI-BW LIES/MYTHS/STEROTYPES that continue to be used today to TRASH the HUMANITY/DIGNITY/FEMININITY of BW.

    Like


  327. bump – nobody ever seemed to comment on the links to the articles I submitted in this post. I find this a bit disturbing given the fact that they pertain to much of what this particular thread discusses.

    Like


  328. Sorry, ColorOfLuv. I guess I didn’t catch that post (just like the one J was referring to). Will try to find those. 🙂

    Like


  329. No worries Mira. Its not required reading by any means, those interested in this topic will probably find the articles of great interest.

    The articles address a lot of the same talking points as this thread. When 8 different scholars of various backgrounds have something to say about these same topics, I am eager to listen. (or read…)

    Like


  330. J asks:
    1. Can you clarify here what is the definition of a ‘Gringo’ and how does it apply to a person of African descent in the UK??

    Luso-speakers still use the original meaning of “gringo”, which is basically any foreigner who doesn’t speak Portuguese the way we do. It has no racial component at all. I’ve seen Mexicans get called “gringos” by Brazilians, for example. From a Brazilian perspective – even an African Brazilian perspective – you are quite definitely a gringo.

    2. Can you confirm that your students who you refer to as African have ‘problems’ (you can use any other adjective you like at this point) against Afrocentric scholars in the US?? For this dialogue can you specifically name these Black historians/academic etc

    Most of my students are more conversant with so-called afrocentric scholars in Luso-speaking world. The Mozambiqueans, in particular, have little patience with Brazilians who attempt to situate them as “brothers” of the Nigerians or who presume that their culture and politics are essentially the same as the Angolans. If you say you are “afrocentric” to one of these guys, they’re liable to start quizzing you about your knowledge of Mozambiquean history over the past 50 years and they’ll want some specific indication that you know what you’re talking about. Black Brazilians who mouth afrocentric platitudes but who have no understanding of the Mozambiquean civil war (to just take one small example) are people these guys don’t respect very much. The comment I mostly hear from them is “”People seem think we’re all out on the veldt wearing zebra pelts and hunting lions. When they say ‘Africa’, they’re really thinking ‘Safari-land'”.

    In spite of your failure to attempt to answer your own question that you can demonstrate in history where Whites have been classified as sub-human vis-a-vis Black people.

    Actually, I did discuss that in my post to Mira, above. I’ll be happy to discuss it at length with you, J, provided you give me a definition of “human” that you’re satisfied with. I’m not going to waste my time, otherwise, because your stock response – “Oh, that’s not afrocentric” – will simply be mobilized to dismiss anything I have to say on the topic.

    Like


  331. To J –

    I must have missed this when you said towards Thad, “In spite of your failure to attempt to answer your own question that you can demonstrate in history where Whites have been classified as sub-human vis-a-vis Black people.”

    There are numerous examples of this. Most notably the Irish. (Did you know they actually were slaves, not to mention the hundreds of years of persecution and discrimination. Back when America was still segregated, imagine strolling down the streets of London seeing signs that read, “No Blacks, NO IRISH”)

    Let me know if you need links or citations….

    Like


  332. B.R. sez:
    Thad, something just doesnt sit straight with me by your implicaton that it was more enslavement of women.

    It’s not an implication, B.R.: it’s a stated hypothesis.
    I dont think all white women were forced to get married , and there was still an etiquete of respect even if the women had to know their place. The deep south was known for a code of respect for its white women.
    First of all, the discussion of rape which we had above neatly tosses that consideration out. Women like Jasmin and – to a certain degree – Mira are arguing that it was rape due to the fact that women couldn’t say “no” to sex – independent of what violence or respect might have been directed at them. Furthermore, no one is arguing that this happened to “all” women. Sure, all white women didn’t get married. Likewise, all slave women didn’t have their sexual lives run by their masters.

    The fact that some didn’t doesn’t ameliorate the situation of those who DID.

    Furthermore, as someone who’s supposedly lived in Brazil for 20+ years, you should understand by now that cordiality and respect do not indicate a lack of violence. Rather, as Sérgio Buarque de Holanda has it, these things spring up as shock-absorbers in highly hierarchical societies. “Respect” allows cross-hierarchical interactions which don’t call the total social structure into question. The situate what should be human or general rights as individual exceptions. Southerners most certainly did not “respect” all white women, B.R. Finally, this point has been confirmed and analyzed to death by southern historians such as Eugene Genovese and J. W. Cash: “respect” of women did not translate into equality. Rather, it indicated a full-blown complex of feminine servitude.

    Black slave women were not given any code of respect.

    Actually, you’re wrong – and I have this on the word of one of the foremost black feminist scholars of slavery in the U.S., Deborah Gray White (great name, huh)?

    Just as there were white categories which were not respected, there were black categories which were: the mammy, for example.

    Your problem here is that you seem to be confusing “respect” with “rights”: the one is a customary attribution given to individuals and it can be taken away as easily as it’s given, being that it’s completely built upon interpersonal interactions. The second is a state of affairs which is stipulated by law and which exists independent of interpersonal considerations. The south loved “respect” as it was highly malleable and could be adapted case-by-case and taken away in a snap of one’s fingers. What the south (and indeed, slave-holding societies in general) did NOT like were rights.

    Ans, as you’ll notice, the entire thrust of the “sex under slavery is rape” argument has to do with a woman’s RIGHT to say “no”, not her specific interpersonal situation vis-a-vis this or that guy who MIGHT respect her (or not).

    And, as you admit, there isn’t enough documentation of what slave life and feelings was really like, it makes an academic position about this related to documentation, inadequate.

    Certainly it’s inadequate. But the same argument can be leveled at those who try to portray antebellum plantations as Serbian rape farms. My point, B.R., is that we’re probably closer to the truth when we base our arguments on what solid information WE DO HAVE rather than on our current emotional and/or political needs. Presuming, of course, that we’re doing history here and not simply making up convenient myths for our own comfort.

    Like


  333. Colorovluv, J is just f@#$ing with you when he says he doesn’t know of any situations in which whites were defined as subhuman. He knows very well about the Irish, about white women, about Australian transportees, about late 19th century racialist theories that the white working class was sub-evolved, about degeneracy theory as applied to white trash…

    All of these examples and more can be cited. Many, many whites have been listed as “sub-human” by whites across the centuries, both groups and individuals.

    The problem here is that “human” as we use it is going to be handwaved away by J as “euro-centered rhetoric”. He has another definition of “human” in his head – one which he will call “afro-centric” and which will convniently define “inhuman treatment” as solely what people of color have experienced at the hands of whites.

    It’s the same sort of thing hyperactive Jewish militants do when they’ll froth at you that only the Jews have REALLY undergone genocide.

    It’s simply the mobilization of a tautology and it’s a well-known rhetorical trick: define X as whatever your group went through. Thus X CAN ONLY be whatever your group went through.

    Like


  334. B.R., you probably don’t know this, but the sociology of “respect” and how this is one of the pillars of heirarchical and unjust societies has been something of a Brazilian specialty over the last fifty years.

    You complain that I don’t know sh$% about music. Read Sergio Buarque’s theory of “the cordial man”. You’ll like Sérgio: he’s Chico’s dad.

    It’s amazing to me that you’ve lived here 20+ years and you haven’t come across any of this yet. It’s a bet of a touch-stone in Brazilian cultural theory.

    Like


  335. Thanks for the clarification Thad…

    Wow, looks like I missed out on some great dialogue between you two.

    You said, “The problem here is that “human” as we use it is going to be handwaved away by J as “euro-centered rhetoric”. He has another definition of “human” in his head – one which he will call “afro-centric” and which will convniently define “inhuman treatment” as solely what people of color have experienced at the hands of whites.”

    wow – how can an intellectual maintain that type of thought after having reviewed actual facts?

    Like


  336. Gates:
    Some of this inter-racial sexuality was voluntary, we now know, but far more was coerced, a reflection or a result of a profound imbalance of power.

    McWhorter:
    Another thing that keeps us from appreciating such stories is that they are so often painful or embarrassing, involving coercion and illegitimacy…. Of course there were less unsavory kinds of racial mixture in the past. I just finished reading Marcus LiBrizzi’s new book “Lost Atusville” about a small town in Maine founded in the 18th century, where black-white couples were hardly uncommon and occasioned little remark.

    Berlin:
    Melvinia’s fate reveals the presumption that white men believed it was their prerogative to have sexual access to black women.

    However, it tells us nothing about the nature of the relationship that emerged from such unions — relations that begin in force sometimes turn in strange ways and can even conclude with respect and love. As Professor James Gillmer noted in the article, “these relationships can be complex.”

    Well, I’ll be damned: three of those eight scholars essentially support the same position I do, to wit, slavery produced a series of complex relationships based on coercion which cannot simply be glossed as rape.

    What do you have to say about that, J? All eurocentric brainwashing, I suppose.

    Like


  337. Sorry for moving this slightly off topic here…

    Cheers Thad for the definition on the word ‘gringos’.

    As for your students (if they are your students) from Mozambique I had asked you specifically which African-centred academic historians they had problems with in the U.S. Unfortunately you did not address this point.

    I would like to add I am not in the least surprised that some would not regard Brazilian as their ‘brothers’, or even Nigerians too.

    However, I bet if you ask your students the following, it will be interesting to observe their responses. Maybe you may wantto try this out…

    1. Ask them do they know if Mozambique history before the coming of the Portuguese??

    2. Ask them do they know which part of Africa they came from before they settled there??

    3. Ask them do they know the history of the continent generally (past) or even other countries today (present)??

    4. Ask them what knowledge do they have of Blacks in the Pacific, S.E Asia etc??

    Please do let me know what answer they tell you…

    Like


  338. Thanks ColorofLuv

    The link will not be necessary.

    You have grabbed the wrong end of the stick in this debate I think.

    And still while I am on this theme, I suspect this is why you did not get a response to your link, which is more about
    ‘hereditary’

    What occurred is that one of the commentators here attempted inadvertently or otherwise to reduce the Black woman in slavery to being more or less the same as ALL
    women living in that era.

    My position was this is not s and I asked the commentator to show where in history has the White woman being classified as subhuman (and I am not talking here of instances of mistreatment etc) vis-a-vis the system of Blacks under the system of slavery which is a genocidal system

    Like


  339. j, you asked:

    “…I asked the commentator to show where in history has the White woman being classified as subhuman…”

    In every islamic theocratic society.

    There are virtually no legal differences between the lives of women in places like Saudi Arabia and the lives of black female slaves in America.

    Like


  340. And again ColorofLuv

    From an African centred viewpoint. Although the Irish were/are treated brutally by the British. This is in essence a ‘war’ between two European-White nations.

    The African kingdoms around the 12th century, when the Anglo-Normans went into Ireland were not responsible for this colonial war.

    So in essence this is part of European history. And this is where Euro-centred history becomes invaluable. Since it is their duty to help explain this injustice.

    Finally did you get the chance to read this link:

    http://www.irishecho.com/newspaper/story.cfm?id=17800

    Like


  341. Not quite No_Slappz

    Unless you agree that the women under Islamic countries are living under a genocidal system…

    Like


  342. As for your students (if they are your students) from Mozambique I had asked you specifically which African-centred academic historians they had problems with in the U.S. Unfortunately you did not address this point.

    Why should I? YOU brought up “U.S. african-centered scholars”, not me. It’s anyone’s guess as to why you think these people should be important to my Portuguese-speaking students when the Luso-speaking world has its own batch of Africa Centered scholars to deal with.

    By the way, J, have you stopped beating your wife yet?

    Like


  343. And again lets say you are correct in what you say No_Slappz these women would not be considered ‘White’

    And the question would still be open to be answered.

    Where in the history book can White women be classified as sub-human, strictly vis-a-vis- Black people, but in particular Black women??

    Like


  344. J – I think most individuals from a specific countryare going to know more about their respective history compared to the history of other nations. (I.E. Americans are not going to be as educated on Brazilian history, Brazilians are not going to be as educated on Angolan history, etc…)

    I tend to be more knowledgeable on Latin American history because I minored in Latin American Studies. (That and living in Brazil)

    Like


  345. With regard to

    Why should I? YOU brought up “U.S. african-centered scholars”, not me.

    I am afraid you also brought it up when you suggested your students have a problem with African-centred American scholars.

    If what you say is true, you should be able to tell me what scholars these are.

    This is the second question I observe you are trying to avoid, even if you do not wish to ask your Mozambiquan students my other questions.

    Like


  346. What occurred is that one of the commentators here attempted inadvertently or otherwise to reduce the Black woman in slavery to being more or less the same as ALL
    women living in that era.

    This is either a lie or a gross misreading of my point – which was not at all inadvertant, by the way. I am making a specific argument regarding rape, not a general comparison of women to slaves.

    With regards to the SPECIFIC condition of rape (rape as defined by Jasmin in social-structural coercive terms and not necessarily meaning physcial, violent, individualized rape), women in general couldn’t say “no” in this period.

    Slavery didn’t mean that one couldn’t say “no” while non-slave women could: slavery changed who one couldn’t say “no” to. Who coerced not lack of coercion. THAT is the difference.

    This is a specific argument dealing with a specific issue and not – as J would have it – an attempt to situate women in general as the equivalent of slave women.

    I’ve made this same point a half dozen times now and it is quite beyond my capacity to believe that J doesn’t understand the difference between my point and the one he’s attributed to me. This is distressing, because usually J isn’t quite this intellectually dishonest in his arguments.

    Like


  347. Thanks ColoofLuv,

    What you say in essence is true…but I do not understand the point??

    Like


  348. No worries J… I thought you were stating that Thad’s students should know about “Mozambiques history”, that “Mozambique should know about Brazil’s history”, etc…

    Maybe I read your comment wrong?

    Like


  349. Personally I think your whole argument is flawed Thad.
    And here I am using your own type of reasoning…

    If you took your time and invested the same arguments against African centred perspective. You would begin to understand.

    The problem with your analysis is that White people, out of their tradition etc created their civilization. As a result of this assigned certain things, ideas etc to the female.

    One of those ideas is that women were the propeert of men, not only husbands but their fathers too and so forth.

    So if in this type of society a man has sex with a woman, and the woman does NOT want it. It can’t be defined as rape.

    If however, 400 years later, in teh same society, where women have more right, and men perspectives have changed. then looking back it becomes an act of rape.

    Moving on and away…

    The problem I have with what you are trying to do is that you seem to be saying that this is the Black woman’s cultural reality. Clearly it is not, from the outset even when captured in Africa the Black female had no rights.

    So the situation of the White female in U.S society with regard to having sex, and the ability to say no, which they could, does not compare to Black female slaves who could not say no, because this was teh case, and/or were too afraid to say no because of some other form of sanctions.

    And once again you still have not answered the question!!

    Like


  350. With regard to:

    No worries J… I thought you were stating that Thad’s students should know about “Mozambiques history”, that “Mozambique should know about Brazil’s history”, etc…

    Maybe I read your comment wrong?

    I am not sure I can best explain it here ColorofLuv. Thad is a very euro-centred lecturer in my opinion. There is nothing wrong with that.

    Furthermore I think he can be regarded from the old-school too. Again nothing wrong with that.

    However, they do have their problems and limitation.

    My perspective is an African centred perspective, of which there are many differing variants.

    I said to Thad, and I mean this honestly that I am seriously concerned, for his Black students, if what he says here is representative.

    As a result, he then went on to say his students have alarge problem, or at least he hinted this, with U.S. African centred scholars.

    I asked him to name these scholars to make the conversation tangible. He didn’t but he gave the response today, the one you read.

    So in response to what he wrote Iasked those questions because when you start to think in an African centred way your thinking moves from the ‘immediate (whether it be tribe, ethnicity, countrty ec) to global.

    I just wanted confirmation in essence that these students are not like their lecturer – and again from this African centred perspective. This is worrying, very worrying…

    I hope this has clarified somewhat for you.

    Like


  351. Do you think it would be possible for an individual to move beyond any type of “centrist” thinking? I’m talking about “centrist” thinking in a negative way. By negative, I mean “limiting” by centrist “boundaries”. But…. perhaps by “centrist”, in your case, “Afro-centric” history -you only mean to be having a concentration on Africa as it pertains to “Global History” overall. If that is correct, then you are not denying nor negating history in general as it pertains to other areas of culture. Am I correct? I don’t have a probem with that. (mot that my ‘individual’ opinion matters. I’m just trying to understand)

    I only have problems when individuals are Euro-centric, Afro-centric, to the point that it hinders, rather than facilitates the expansion of knowledge in the name of education, science, etc…

    Afterall, its just human history, a shared history – right?

    What is it that you would like to see for Thad’s students? I guess i could pose the question this way, Do you want “black students” to see things differently than “white” students, or should all students approach history and culture from various perspectives?

    Like


  352. I am not quite sure what to say here…

    I do not think it is possible. Humans seem to have a tendency to make divisions. If all the present boundaries were removed. I am sure others would be found, ie like those who have a mole on their face are ugly and hence outcasts, and academia would develop or have theories on why this is so.

    As for ‘centrics’ none of them are ‘objective’, or all inclusive.
    The very nature of the word ‘centric’ negates ‘all inclusiveness’

    What I would say though I think ‘individuals’ can become what you say, freed from ‘centricism’. The only problem though it can lead to pitfalls in their daily-living, since the world is not constructed so. Since a human being only becomes so in the cultural context of his/he environment (your name, upbringing, societal values etc)

    Just a few random thoughts to some of the things you said/asked

    Like


  353. thanks for your response… You are absolutely correct in stating that humans have a tendency to make divisions. All one has to do is look at the current state of the world. Hutus/Tutsi, Serbs/Croats, etc…

    It is unfortunate. I do have hope however… Hope that we as “Americans” will become more United based on our commonalities and shared history rather than our “phenotypic” differences – which will also become less pronounced over time.

    Like


  354. With regard to:

    Well, I’ll be damned: three of those eight scholars essentially support the same position I do, to wit, slavery produced a series of complex relationships based on coercion which cannot simply be glossed as rape.

    What do you have to say about that, J? All eurocentric brainwashing, I suppose.

    I have just seen this.

    Now what I would say it all depends upon what definition of rape you are using, and whethr you merely tieing rape to a sexual act only and the right to say no, or whether rape does involve coercion and in essence it emerges from a society that has ‘negative’ views of women, which can force them to behave, in other ways if they were in a ‘normal’ society, by forming all sorts of liasions with those that are abusing her (here read her choice of partner)??

    This time I think the patriarchical side of your academic studies is getting in the way of your analysis here, as opposed to euro-centricism per se…

    Like


  355. j, you wrote:

    “Not quite No_Slappz…Unless you agree that the women under Islamic countries are living under a genocidal system…”

    Not quite? Oh. In islamic theocracies women have virtually no rights. Their husbands can murder them under recognized circumstances. They are barred from most activities outside the home of their husband or father.

    Is this situation a perfect parallel to conditions black females experienced as slaves in the US more than 150 years ago?

    No. But it is close enough.

    These women are white and they are — today — de facto slaves. That means they have been legislated by islamic law — the law of many lands — into sub-human status.

    Like


  356. J,
    In the US, one of the arguments to stop the importation of salves, were that they were reproducing enough to keep up the demand.
    http://www.academicamerican.com/revolution/documents/ConstDebate.html

    So how do you equate slavery to genocide? Isn’t that counter intuitive?

    Once cotton became a major crop, even though importation was illegal, more slaves were imported because growing cotton was extremely labor intensive. Slavery in those states were even more brutal.

    Like


  357. With regard to the issue of genocide…

    Forgive me here I am really surprised that a Black person should be asking this type of question.

    From you look at the micro and macro aspect of slavery in the West.From the treatment of the from when they were first captured, taken in chain where they would walk hundred of miles. Those who could not make it even children were left to die. Then they were placed on the slave ships skipping about the obscene part where they wallowed in their own faeces etc. Brought to the Americas.

    What we find is if we study slavery the average life of the slaves were very short, becaus ethe aim was to work them to death since the aim was about making and gaining capital

    Before Blacks were brought over to the Caribbean the Western nations had wiped out more or less the indigenous Caribs/Arawaks who were also enslaved. So in essence the process of genocide was already in process even before Blacks reached the Americas.

    Anyhow back to the Black slaves. The Black slaves were worked to death. Depending on what figures are used you get a huge figure starting as low as 10 million as much as up to 24 million lives lost because of teh process.

    African centred scholars have a much higher figure. What I would say the figure of 10-25 million as given by various different euro-centred scholars, does not take into account the amount of lives lost, in the wars fomented by teh Western nations. However, and leaving aside that point, if one uses ‘reverse thinking’ and account for the amount of deaths under this system, of one particular group/race of people in teh Western world…

    if this it not tantamount to genocide, then I have a problem of understanding what the issue is all about??

    And here I am not going into specious arguments either of the word ‘genocide’ and how it only came about post 1945 to describe what happened to European Jews within Europe.

    I hope this has clarified somewhat

    Like


  358. To J:

    I am not sure if I can answer your question though, or the implied one though. There are too many factors though
    like the life expectancy rates of slaves, new imports from Africa to replace the existing ones, Blacks mixing with Native Americans etc etc etc..

    I can see your point that it is not really not germane to this particular discussion although Laroma made a statement that she feels that dynamic between the White slave masters and Black female slaves affects today’s Black/White relationships. On this and other sites, the issue of the Anglo relationship with Black slaves versus the Latin relationship with Black slaves has been discussed in great detail. It boils down a color gradient in Latin America versus fairly sharp racial lines in Canada and the US. (At least for Blacks and Whites…)

    FWIW, the admixture of European genes in self identified Black Americans is about four times higher than the Native American admixture according to Gates.

    Like


  359. With regard to:

    NOT QUITE? OH. In islamic theocracies women have virtually no rights. Their husbands can murder them under recognized circumstances. They are barred from most activities outside the home of their husband or father.

    Is this situation a perfect parallel to conditions black females experienced as slaves in the US more than 150 years ago?

    NO. But it is close enough.

    These women are white and they are — today — de facto slaves. That means they have been legislated by islamic law — the law of many lands — into sub-human status.

    What I would say here No_Slappz is that you must know by now that I do like to point out tautologies ha ha

    You say:

    Not quite? Oh=No…

    So in essence you have answered your own question.

    And again no matter what Islamic men may or may not do to and for their women. I am sure if you could have a conversation with someone from those land whether he views his wife or a particular woman as being below the level of human being. Then I think you will have to concede your point.

    Any ‘put down’ of woman is essentially based upon by ‘sex’ and reinforced by ‘gender’ but it is not because they are below or worth the status of being a human being, if you follow the subtle difference??

    Finally -and you are in the US – these women in the Islamic nations you are describing would NOT be classified as
    ‘White’ but that is a different subject altogether.

    I hope this makes some sort of sense from your perspective .

    Like


  360. To J:

    What we find is if we study slavery the average life of the slaves were very short, because the aim was to work them to death since the aim was about making and gaining capital.

    From my understanding the lifespan of slaves was rather short in the Caribbean and Brazil but substantially better in North America.

    Like


  361. Thanks Uncle Milton,

    I had said somewhere on this blog that I believe the one rule drop arose because the English were not as racially mixed as say the Spanish and Portuguese. Remember Spain was ruled by the Moors (Blacks/Arabs/Berbers) for nearly 800 years.

    This is just my take why the race classification differs for Iberian slavery vis-a-vis Anglo-slavery

    Thanks for the information on Gates. All I can say from an African centred perspectives, there are many different scholars within ‘African centredness’ but I think there would be a lot of convergence and many would classify Gates as being a ‘euro-centred scholar.’

    I am not saying he is wrong on this matter, but his perspectives is what is often questionable.

    Like


  362. Thanks Uncle Milton…

    but it still does not take away from the essence of my argument, I am sure you would agree

    Like


  363. To J:

    I had said somewhere on this blog that I believe the one rule drop arose because the English were not as racially mixed as say the Spanish and Portuguese. Remember Spain was ruled by the Moors (Blacks/Arabs/Berbers) for nearly 800 years.

    This is just my take why the race classification differs for Iberian slavery vis-a-vis Anglo-slavery.

    It is my understanding that the one drop in the US arose after the civil war and that racial classifications (as well as disallowing interracial marriage…) varied from state to state (although after the Civil war most states banned marriages between Whites and Non-Whites…)

    I think French Louisiana had a pretty substantial Creole population before it was sold to the US, so the different approaches to the color line may have had something to do with Catholicism versus the self perception of race among Iberian Europeans but admittedly I have no studied the subject in depth.

    http://www.creolehistory.com

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_people_of_color#History

    Like


  364. Correct me here Uncle Milton

    Was not New Orleans originally a part of France, or was it Spain??

    Like


  365. Having just begun to read your second link…I see it was France.

    In a way it is not until the English takes over taht I think we find the one drop rule in place.

    As I said its just my conjecture…

    Like


  366. And still on the issue of genocide…

    Black Jacobin CLR James Ch1 ‘The Property’…

    “…But there was no ingenuity that fear or a depraved imagination could devise which was not employed to break their (ie slaves) spirit and satisfy the lusts and resentments of their owners and guardians – irons on the hand and feet, blocks of wood that the slaves had to drag behind them wherever they went, the tin-plate mask designed to prevent the slaves eating sugar cane, the iron collar.

    Whipping was interrupted in order to pass a piece of hot wood on the buttock of the victim; salt, pepper, citron, cinders aloes and hot ashes were poured on the bleeding wounds.

    Mutilations were common, limbs, ears and sometimes the private parts to deprive them of the pleasures which they could indulge in without expense.

    Their masters poured burning wax on their arms and hands and shoulders, emptied the boiling cane sugar over their heads, burned them alive, roasted them on slow fires, filled them with gunpowder and blew them up with a match, buried them up to the neck and smeared their heads with sugar that the flies might devour them, fastened them to nests of ants or wasps; made them eat their excrement, drink their urine, and lick the saliva of other slaves…

    Were these tortures, so well authenticated, habitual or were they merely isolated incidents, the extravagances of a few half-crazed colonist?

    …All the evidence shows that THESE BESTIAL PRACTICES WERE NORMAL FEATURES OF SLAVE LIFE…”

    Like


  367. New Orleans was mainly under French rule, but it was under Spanish rule for a while. It was sold to the Americans as part of the Louisiana Purchase. They did not take much interest in it till after the civil war. That is when Anglo ideas about the One Drop Rule arrived.

    Like


  368. Thanks Abagond

    Like


  369. And again on this matter of genocide: Malcolm X on Afro-American History, Pathfinder Press…

    “…And this is why they took the role of the ‘slave maker’ out of history. It was so criminal that they don’t even dare to write about it…

    I read in one book how the slave maker used to take a pregnant woman…and make her watch as her man would be tortured and put to death.

    [Another] had trees that he planted in positions where he would bend them and tie them, and then tie the hand of a Black man to one, a hand to the other, and his legs to two more, and he’d cut the rope. And when he cut the rope, the tree would snap up and pull the arm of the [slave] right out of his socket, pull him up into four different parts.
    I’ll show you books where you can read it, they write about it.

    They used to take a Black woman who would be pregnant and tie her up by her toes, let her be hanging head down, and they would take the knife and cut her stomach open, let that Black unborn child fall out, and then stomp its head, in the ground.

    I’ll show you books where they write about this… ‘Slave Trade by Spears; From Slavery to Freedom by John Hope Franklin; Negro Family in U.S by Frazier touches upon it…
    ‘Anti-slavery’ by Dwight Lowell Dummond…”

    Like


  370. To J:

    Thanks Uncle Milton…

    but it still does not take away from the essence of my argument, I am sure you would agree..

    Not a challenge but which one..?

    Like


  371. oh dear…as he places head to hand or is it the other way he he

    G-E-N-O-C-I-D-E

    Like


  372. J,
    I think Gates may not be referring to all relationships being that of slaves. I provide a link earlier to a group whose African mixture is thought to be from those on Portuguese ships surveying America. There is a specific genetic disease that runs in those families that may have originated in Portugal. There have been a lot of communities that were intermixed during slavery, though somewhat isolated in the mountains. It could be assumed that runaway slaves could find security in some of those places.

    Like


  373. To J:
    G-E-N-O-C-I-D-E

    There have quite a few themes raised here.. so sorry.. I wasn’t exactly sure which one you referencing.

    You will not get any argument from me that there was severe cultural genocide directed towards Africans brought to the new world.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_genocide

    As far as genocide in the physical sense certainly many Africans were killed in the crossing and the first years in the new world, but overall it was not the slavers intent to kill slaves if they could avoid it. After all slaves were valuable. The intent was to control and breed people like livestock.

    That’s how the US went from roughly 650,000 Black slaves to today’s 40 million Black Americans. That does not excuse the behavior of the slavers however.

    Like


  374. Thanks Hathor,

    It was Thad who originally quoted Gates to back up his ideas of ‘coercion vis-a-vis rape’

    Like


  375. Why did you choose wikipedia Uncle Milton? Especially as you chose the topic ‘cultural genocide’ which is a different complete process altogether…

    Like


  376. J,
    I wasn’t implying that horrible things didn’t happen, what you are describing is a serial killer or sadist who had the cover of slavery. Even if they thought Blacks were subhuman, serial killers sometimes started by killing small animals and pets

    If you are using a slave to sustain your income why does killing them make sense. I don’t know about anywhere else, but I don’t think slaves here died as young as you think. I got the sense from my grandmother that Black folks lived long lives. She was the first generation born out of slavery.

    As for working hard, Black folks works as hard as they did as slaves doing sharecropping. Picking cotton didn’t change the day they became free. Slaves also did more than back breaking labor, they provided the skills to run the plantations. They provided childcare, cooking and cleaning, nursing babies and gardening. They were the jockeys, blacksmiths, worked leather and raised horses at plantations that bred race horses. Why do you think that Blacks were successful after slavery? That is one reason that the Jim Crow laws were put in place, to prevent them from competing with the average white person. Jim Crow was Affirmative Action for the white southerner.

    Like


  377. To J:

    Why did you choose wikipedia Uncle Milton?
    It had a convenient definition….

    Especially as you chose the topic ‘cultural genocide’ which is a different complete process altogether…

    Is cultural genocide a completely different process than genocide..? I would disagree.. it seems pretty clear that cultural genocide was waged upon Africans brought to the new world. Their old culture was replaced was a new culture.. that of being a slave at the beck and call of Whites.

    I have read some source materials written by slavers on how slaves should be managed. They read like animal husbandry or dog breeding manuals. (For example I have read a dog breeding manual that suggested you kill any violent St. Bernards as these are considered aberrant. I have seen similar phrases in regards to managing slaves..)

    In reading descriptions of Nazi German attitudes towards Jews or Turkish attitudes towards Armenians.. it’s pretty clear they wanted their victims dead or at the very least removed from their presence.

    White slavers didn’t want Black slaves to be dead.. they wanted them to be submissive. As I said, more akin to the treatment livestock. Maybe that is still genocide but it is different than the Nazi or Turkish genocidal actions.

    Like


  378. j, you wrote:

    “What I would say here No_Slappz is that you must know by now that I do like to point out tautologies ha ha”

    No tautologies here. Maybe you do not know the definition.

    You wrote:

    “And again no matter what Islamic men may or may not do to and for their women. I am sure if you could have a conversation with someone from those land whether he views his wife or a particular woman as being below the level of human being. Then I think you will have to concede your point.”

    Women — wives — in islamic theocracies are acquired through barter. Cattle, pigs, actual compensation. Marriages are arranged.

    In islamic theocracies, women have no rights. Humans have rights. But to have rights in an islamic theocracy, you must be male.

    You wrote:

    “Any ‘put down’ of woman is essentially based upon by ’sex’ and reinforced by ‘gender’ but it is not because they are below or worth the status of being a human being, if you follow the subtle difference??”

    Subtle difference? There is nothing subtle about shari’a law.

    You wrote:

    “Finally -and you are in the US – these women in the Islamic nations you are describing would NOT be classified as ‘White’ …”

    They most certainly are white.

    Furthermore, I live in Brooklyn, NY, in a mixed neighborhood that is adjacent to a large Pakistani muslim neighborhood of about 50,000. Every day I run into plenty of muslim women wearing chadors and burkas, covered head to toe in black, just their eyes showing.

    Like


  379. Just to say these are the historical facts of slavery…

    You are entirely free to do what you want with those facts.

    However, it is incorrect to make out here that this is my view. CLR James was a respected scholar, Malcolm X was a knowledgeable historian who quoted his references in this instance…

    Like


  380. But No_Slappz you yourself said they were not the same thing, even if you conceded they are close.

    So by your response you validated my point even if that was not your intention.

    Like


  381. To Natasha W:

    Uncle Milton, what field of biology did you study? I would have thought you were a historian.

    Microbiology although I currently work in the IT industry. I have an interest in history and economics. (FWIW, my father is a retired economics professor…)

    Like


  382. If you took your time and invested the same arguments against African centred perspective. You would begin to understand.

    J, seriously, this “African centered” prespective bullsh%$ is getting old. You don’t define it, can’t define it and keep on repeating it as if you were some sort of autistic, banging your head on the floor. It is simply a fancy way of effectively saying “I have found Jeezis [or whatever ultimate truth you prefer] and unless you think exactly like me you are condemned to hell.”

    I’m not interestd in discussions about faith, J, political, religious or otherwise.

    The problem with your analysis is that White people, out of their tradition etc created their civilization. As a result of this assigned certain things, ideas etc to the female.

    No doubt. And yet the very book YOU suggested we read as a great resource on African slavery quite clearly indicates that Sub-Saharan Africa ALSO enslaved women principally due to their sexual-reproductive potential. In other words, both Africa and Europe seem to have a thing about women who say “no”, don’t they?

    One of those ideas is that women were the propeert of men, not only husbands but their fathers too and so forth.

    Again, see your suggested book on African slavery. It’s not so much that women were property, as their sexual-reproductive abilities were property. This was true in Africa, Europe and, in fact, in most of the world.

    So if in this type of society a man has sex with a woman, and the woman does NOT want it. It can’t be defined as rape.

    Whether or not we define it as rape is actually quite immaterial to my argument. The fact of the matter is this: slave women did not control their sexual-reproductive abilities, nor did free women, neither in the U.S., nor in Europe, nor in Africa.

    If you weren’t so blinded to this fact by that penis that’s swinging between your legs, J, this wouldn’t be news to you. Unfortunately, you’re caught up in a masculinist reading of history. A feminist reading of history would show you how wrong you are. 😀

    The problem I have with what you are trying to do is that you seem to be saying that this is the Black woman’s cultural reality. Clearly it is not, from the outset even when captured in Africa the Black female had no rights.

    Er, no. I’m saying it was women’s reality, period. And you’re right: she had no sexual rights in Africa when she was captured. That was the case whether or not she was sold to Europeans or sold into your “kinder, gentler” form of African slavery.

    So the situation of the White female in U.S society with regard to having sex, and the ability to say no, which they could, does not compare to Black female slaves who could not say no, because this was teh case, and/or were too afraid to say no because of some other form of sanctions.

    White women couldn’t legally say “no” to their husbands, just like slave women couldn’t say “no” to their masters. Slavery changed WHO “owned” the woman’s sexual-reproductive capacities, it did not remove her from control of those capacities.

    Like I said, if you weren’t so impressed by that piece of meat between your legs, this wouldn’t be news to you.

    And once again you still have not answered the question!!

    Well, J, that question’s been answered twice over now. I suggest you scroll up and dig for it.

    In the meantime, have you stopped beating your wife?

    Like


  383. I am not sure I can best explain it here ColorofLuv. Thad is a very euro-centred lecturer in my opinion. There is nothing wrong with that.

    Furthermore I think he can be regarded from the old-school too. Again nothing wrong with that.

    However, they do have their problems and limitation.

    My perspective is an African centred perspective, of which there are many differing variants.

    The problem with J is that his view of history and historiography seems to stop in 1984 or thereabouts. He still thinks that “afrocentrism” is the solution to all that’s wrong with the study of history. In the last 25 years, however, folks have moved on to questioning the very idea of “centrism” itself. The post-colonial perspective, which is pretty much wher I locate myself, isn’t interested in taking a tiured, unilateral perspective (eurocentrism) and turning it on its head and proclaiming that all is well with the universe.

    Rather, post-colonialism worries about contact zones and intersectionalities. The worn-out arguments between feminists and africanists and queer theorists of the 1980s – which is where J apparently stopped in his academic development – led to useless arguments over who was more oppressed and the difusing of any possible political ocratic program for the renewal of democratic life. History can’t be understood from any one “centered” viewpoint. NO “center” can have anything more than a purely contextual or tactical value. It is only by trying to simultaneously engage with the various “centers” which sit at the basis of human socio-political experience like strange attractors that we can construct anything approximating history.

    J’s problem with me isn’t that I’m “eurocentric” (I’m not: I’m post-colonial, if anything) and he’s “afrocentric”. His problem, as far as I can see it, is that he’s given up history as a fool’s game and basically believes that mythopoetic constructions should take it’s place. And he apparently feels that he and a like-minded vanguard are the proper people to construct these myths.

    The problem here is that I’m still trying to be a historian whereas J has left that a long time ago and now fully embraces being a myth-maker.

    Like


  384. Thad “It’s amazing to me that you’ve lived here 20+ years and you haven’t come across any of this yet. It’s a bet of a touch-stone in Brazilian cultural theory.”

    cmon Thad, its amazing you have lived in Rio 20 years and dont know what the bass innovation of Luizao Maia is.

    I know custom wise the “respectful” aproach in day to day Brazilian life, and the violence underneath, I dont study and dont pretend to study it. That is your living,academic cultural studies, mine is on the bandstand , visceral understanding of cultural expresion (including lyrics of songs by Chico Buarque are not as profesionaly important for me as being able to know where my bass drum is suposed to fit with the bass player, or what rhythm I have to play for a samba dancer or coco dancer, or what is the musical form of the song).

    I never did agree that academicly knowing Portuguese and reading books on Brazilian philosophy is the litmus test for anything.There are Brazilians that dont read but represent culture as much as any academic.I dont diminish the academic world, I only say you dont have any knowledge you can contribute to what I have to know to get on the bandstand and play with great musicians or dancers and come up with the real deal to interact with them.And my cultural insights are every much as important as yours.You could learn as much from me as me from you. You really dont have any idea what it takes to really learn the culture to be able to perform it on the bandstand and record it in the studio or make a video for dancers.You are an expert on other aspects, and they deserve respect…respect is good and everybody likes it…

    And I say all this to make a point that, whatever you established in the discusion above was between you all, it doesnt affect me. I am addressing your point of veiw on this. And the semantics academic debating is something that sometimes fogs the reality. Academia becomes cumbersome when it starts to be used as a defence to not forget certain basic obvious simple facts that are obvious.

    I never intended the southern respect issue to be a rationalisation, I say it in itself is an example that there is a line between the white woman and the slave black woman.Mammy comparison aside, I would suggest that white woman in mairadges more often were discovering and working it out with their husbands than being raped.

    So lets look just at the woman raped by their husbands and slave woman raped by owners or their sons , cousins and brothers.

    Just like you have poverty in blacks and whites in the USA, there are direct reasons that many poor black descendants of slaves are in a poverty passed down from generation to generation just as wealth is passed down generation to generation.

    Rape is rape , yet, the rape of black women in slavery, the very nature that they were the girls these men could go behind the woodshed and have their first sexual experiance with, manifests in atitudes passed down generation after generation, in a way that definitly relates to these women being black slaves (Freyre even asserts this in Casa Grande a Senzala).

    Black slavery and how blacks were treated after that is the line of differance from the black American experiance and the white American experiance.This is what makes rape of the black female slave and how those atitudes towards her, even after slavery , the line of differance between her and how rape went down with white women in mariadges.

    And this murky 16 century into the 17 century, 6 or 7 generations , where ,from the beginning ,these white slave owners could , when and if they wanted to, have sex with the black women,and their male family members could also, this is where patterns were established where after a while , you can see , after several generations, young black woman could , at the whim of a male family member, have to be the girl behind the woodshed.And these are the patterns and stereo type that followed a part of the black female ( as well as mammy I might add) well after slavery was over.

    This is the notable line of differance from the white woman being raped by her husband, which obvously wasnt every southern couple married. That has its own parameters, and, its obvious. I think your hypothesis is just plain wrong and full of academic semanticle bobbing and weaving, taking focus off of obvious realities.

    Rape of the black slave woman is tied in with breaking up of families , poverty passed down with slavery, and white racist atitudes that permeated housing and job posibilities, that all are in the dynamic of slavery and what it passed down from that. That is a definite line of differance from the white poverty and the reasons it existed and rape of women in marraideges . Understanding these things is the only way to face how these realities play out in our everyday lives.

    Like


  385. Milton sez:
    From my understanding the lifespan of slaves was rather short in the Caribbean and Brazil but substantially better in North America.

    It actually has more to do with the TYPE of slavery rather than the nationality. Slaves who were on small holdings or family-based holdings did much better than those on large plantations. Slavery in most of the U.S. south was small-holding based. Where it was likely small-holding based in Brazil (mostly the Brazilian south and the northeastern backlands), slaves also did relatively well. Where it was large plantation-based in the U.S. (say tha main cotton plantations in Louisiana, Mississippi and Georgia), life expectancies also sucked.

    Like


  386. cmon Thad, its amazing you have lived in Rio 20 years and dont know what the bass innovation of Luizao Maia is.

    B.R., where did I ever say I never heard of Luizão Maia? Now who’s sticking words in people’s throats?

    I never intended the southern respect issue to be a rationalisation, I say it in itself is an example that there is a line between the white woman and the slave black woman.Mammy comparison aside, I would suggest that white woman in mairadges more often were discovering and working it out with their husbands than being raped.

    Just checking here, because I don’t want to be acused later of distorting your words. You ARE aware of what the operative definition of “rape” is that we’re using here, correct? According to Jasmin and Mira, it’s “women not being able to say no to sex without suffering some punishment”. That was indeed very much the case among those southern belles you’re on about and their husbands. They couldn’t say “no” without risking a lot. They had, in fact, no legal right to say no.

    Throughout this discussion, that’s been the definition of “rape”, B.R. you seem to not get that key point. You seem to think we’re talking about the more traditional individually violent rape.

    This is the notable line of differance from the white woman being raped by her husband, which obvously wasnt every southern couple married. That has its own parameters, and, its obvious. I think your hypothesis is just plain wrong and full of academic semanticle bobbing and weaving, taking focus off of obvious realities.

    Listen B.R., if you can’t be polite, then f$%¨off. I don’t say you’re full of sh$# because you are a musician, but pretty much every post you’ve made since we’ve begun discussing things is full of veiled and not-so-veiled insults because I happen to teach for a living. This is prejudiced bullsh#$% and it is stupid as all f#$%. You are effectively saying that someone who does their best to inform themsleves about something should in fact be belittled for that because “really intelligent” people just go on their prejudices alone.

    I have NEVER here – or elsewhere – claimed for academics any particular privileged position with regards to human intelligence, B.R., only with regards to their knowledge in their fields of expertise. You, on the other hand, seem bound and determined to make the assine statement that an informed opinion is actually worse than ignorance.

    Why is that?

    As for “every southern woman being raped by her husband”, if we follow Jasmin’s definition of rape as “not being able to say no” – whether or not the woman acquiesed or even enjoyed it – then what we’re taking about is social structural in naturte, not individual.

    Now, if your point is that slave women suffered more actual, physical VIOLENCE than free white women, that I’ll agree with. But the problem here, B.R., is that’s not the definition of “rape” that people have set up. Jasmin and Mira aren’t talking about violent, personal, physical rape when they talk about slave women: they are talking about the social-structural constraints which made it next to impossible for slave women to say “no” to their owners.

    My point is this: if THAT’S our definition of “rape”, it was endemic to male/female relations.

    Now, if you’re definition of rape is “hold her down and physcially beat her until she has sex with you”, then yeah, I’m sure that was much more common among slave women than free women.

    Like


  387. ok Abagond, this punk is implying some really stupid stuff.

    I easily can handle punks like this using the words you ban, and other ways that would be my pleasure.

    Thad, Ive put up with some real blubber and insults from you.

    as usual you are mischaractorising what im saying

    and you dont know the innovation of Luizao Maia

    You havent addressed the real thoughts I said which didnt say it was all violent rape.

    I never said i hate academics, I despise how academics like you who hide behind semantics and insult like you do

    Like


  388. Insult? How the hell am I insulting you? Listen to this. your words:

    I think your hypothesis is just plain wrong and full of academic semanticle bobbing and weaving, taking focus off of obvious realities….

    …And the semantics academic debating is something that sometimes fogs the reality. Academia becomes cumbersome when it starts to be used as a defence to not forget certain basic obvious simple facts that are obvious.

    …I despise how academics like you who hide behind semantics and insult like you do

    This is ad hominem bullshit at its most basic, B.R. My points of view and my person are somehow less worthy of respect because they are “academic”. Not one of my arguments has been based on semantics. Not one of them has been an insult.

    You havent addressed the real thoughts I said which didnt say it was all violent rape.

    See, this is where I don’t understand it, B.R. Because if you’re not talking about simply violent rape, but you ARE talking about a woman’s ability to say no, then please explain to me how it is that “not all wives were raped” when they quite obviously and simply didn’t have the ability to say “no”?

    Just explain that one point to me, if you please, and leave the B.S. about “academics” out of it.

    Like


  389. Thad,

    A White woman in the colonial US may have been subject to rape from her husband without repercussions but if another man raped her or if she was unmarried (especially if she had social status and her assailant did not..) there could be serious consequences for the perpetrator.

    To the best of my knowledge no such repercussions ever existed for a White man who sexually assaulted a Black slave woman whether he was the her owner, overseer, or a visitor of the household or plantation.

    Like


  390. When he is presented with arguments that crush his, he resorts to “f987 off” and gringo bashing

    J Brazilians are gringos to Bolivians , by the way

    Like


  391. B.R. seriously, I’m not trying to insult you and I think you can see above that I HAVEN’T insulted you, though I do admit to getting pissed at your constant belittling of me because of what I do for a living.

    Like


  392. Where have I gringo bashed you, B.R?

    Like


  393. Thanks B.R.

    No thanks… Thad

    Like


  394. ?Thank you, Milton, for bringing up something reasonable:

    A White woman in the colonial US may have been subject to rape from her husband without repercussions but if another man raped her or if she was unmarried (especially if she had social status and her assailant did not..) their could be serious consequences for the perpetrator.

    Oh, agreed. And yet, a random white man who sexually abused a slave could also face some serious consequences. The question here, Milton, wasn’t slave (no rights) versus free (rights) but the violation of the rights of the man who supposedly was the owner of the woman’s sexuality. In one case, it was the husband, in the other, the slave’s owner.

    There were plenty of instances in southern law where a white man abused a slave who was not his own, harmed said slave, and was punished for it.

    But again, my point isn’t about whether punishments for harming a white woman were worse than for harming a slave. I think we both agree that they were. The point has to do with the crime involved: in NEITHER case was it considered to be a crime against the woman’s personal rights and her autonomous control over her sexuality.

    Like


  395. And since this got lost in Abagond’s deletion

    I/we are still awaiting an analysis of

    1. Where have white women as a collective of people been classified as ‘sub-human’ vis-a-vis Black people, but specifically Black women

    and the far more easier question you would have thought??

    2. What are the names of the African centred scholars in U.S. that your alleged students have problems with??

    Like


  396. If he persist about alluding to my wife, then the conversation is going to get very heated since I am going to say something about his wife which I do have information…before I get banned.

    J, my comment “have you stopped beating your wife” was a (obviously not understood) reference to a common rhetorical tactic which you use quite a lot. Check it out here: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/loadques.html

    It’s a logical fallacy/loaded question:

    A “loaded question”, like a loaded gun, is a dangerous thing. A loaded question is a question with a false or questionable presupposition, and it is “loaded” with that presumption. The question “Have you stopped beating your wife?” presupposes that you have beaten your wife prior to its asking, as well as that you have a wife. If you are unmarried, or have never beaten your wife, then the question is loaded.

    Since this example is a yes/no question, there are only the following two direct answers:

    1.”Yes, I have stopped beating my wife”, which entails “I was beating my wife.”

    2.”No, I haven’t stopped beating my wife”, which entails “I am still beating my wife.”

    Thus, either direct answer entails that you have beaten your wife, which is, therefore, a presupposition of the question. So, a loaded question is one which you cannot answer directly without implying a falsehood or a statement that you deny. For this reason, the proper response to such a question is not to answer it directly, but to either refuse to answer or to reject the question.

    Some systems of parliamentary debate provide for “dividing the question”, that is, splitting a complex question up into two or more simple questions. Such a move can be used to split the example as follows:

    1.”Have you ever beaten your wife?”
    2.”If so, are you still doing so?”
    In this way, 1 can be answered directly by “no”, and then the conditional question 2 does not arise.

    Your repeated requests for me to “answer the question” – a question which has been answered twice and which – if we’re going to get more into it – I would like a prior definition of yours on is a classical example of a “Have you stopped beating your wife” style loaded question.

    No insult to your missus impled.

    Like


  397. B.R.

    I know this completely off topic, and you and Thad seem to be having a heated discussion, but I would love to talk to you about your profession. I have been a musician for about ten years and would love to make a living at it.

    Like


  398. Thad,

    You can say whatever you want…I am standing by what I said earlier. Any such references than I will be speaking of your wife directly

    Like


  399. “But the constant digs about how my opinions are somehow subpar because I teach are bulls#$% on the order of me saying you don’t know sweet f@#$-all about music because you are a musician. I hardly doubt you’d take such a comment as anything but an insult, so please don’t expect me to do any less”

    Where do you get this crap?

    I have given blatent respect at your expertise on Fanon, I have respected your wife’s peice even if i disagree.

    I have said many times you are good at what you know. I never bashed your teaching, but sorry bud, teaching compared to coming from the bandstand experiance when talking about music is ridiculas. but went on ahead all blow hard and blustering. its painful to read some of what you said.

    Listen, when I say Paulo Russo and Luizao Maia can blow Paralamas off the bandstand, its no insult to them , its just truth. and Paralamas made more money and were more popular .

    You just tried to make flipant statements about my charactor and you do hide behind semantics and mischaractoisations.

    This is no mystery on here, people have called you out about it

    Like


  400. Dochartaig

    Well ask anything you want

    Like


  401. ATTENTION PEOPLE OF WAR! (As pessoas de guerra – que porra e essa?!!! Caralho.)

    O’ Dochartaigh – cool stuff about you pursuing music as a career.

    Now – For B.R. and Thaddeus & “J”….. Sheesh, lets calm down a bit here. This is great reading, but productive or counterproductive? Lets make something positive out of this discourse. Thad makes great points – ok. He isn’t “politically correct in his speech because that is not him. He gets to vent on a blog like this, so let him have his day. Ignore what you will and come back.

    J – I agree with you. Thad needs to give some examples. (Thad?)

    B.R. you are passionate and reasonable. Don’t let Thad get the better of you. His “victims” are bloggers and blog participants. (ok, that statement left me open, I’m next!!!) I wouldn’t be surprised if he isn’t doing some research or thesis on the nature of bloggers and posters, yadda yadda yadda.

    Peace and love to you all…..

    Until tomorrow (sheesh I’m tired!)

    Like


  402. I/we are still awaiting an analysis of

    1. Where have white women as a collective of people been classified as ’sub-human’ vis-a-vis Black people, but specifically Black women

    and the far more easier question you would have thought??

    2. What are the names of the African centred scholars in U.S. that your alleged students have problems with??

    First of all, both of these questions have been answered above.

    If you want more discussion on number one, I’m game. But if this is anything other than a “have you stopped beating your wife” loaded question gambit, J, then please provide me with what you find to be an acceptable definition of “sub-human”.

    As for number two, this is clearly a classically “have you stopped beating your wife” loaded question. So let’s break it down by “dividing the question”, shall we?

    1) Do you indeed have students?

    Yes, I do.

    2) Are some of these students Africans?

    Yes. Mozambiqueans, Angolans and Cabo Verdeans. I usually have 1 or 2 every semester.

    3) Have these students interacted with african-centered scholars?

    Most of them have. Mostly Portuguese-speaking African-centered scholars. Mostly Brazilians.

    3) Do they have problems with said scholars?

    That depends. If the scholars actually have some knowledge of Africa that goes beyond what can be gleaned from popular culture and books written by non-Africans, then they generally don’t have more problems with these people than they’d have with any other scholar. If said scholars are simply declaring their “afrocenteredness” as sort of a politically-correct pose to seem engaged with a continent about which they know little or nothing, then my students definitely have problems with these people, yes.

    4) What are the names of African-centered scholars in the U.S. that your students have problems with?

    Most of them don’t know any African-centered American scholars, or even speak English, so they can’t be expected to cite names of American scholars. However, on one occasion, one of my Mozambiquean colleagues (not students) claimed that he though Ron Karenga was doing Africa no good service with his mystification of Kwaanza.

    I already gave you this same essential answer, albeit with fewer details above.

    Like


  403. With regard to:

    “To J:

    Why did you choose wikipedia Uncle Milton?
    It had a CONVENIENT definition….

    Especially as you chose the topic ‘cultural genocide’ which is a different complete process altogether…

    Is cultural genocide a completely different process than genocide..? I would disagree.. it seems pretty clear that cultural genocide was waged upon Africans brought to the new world. Their old culture was replaced was a new culture.. that of being a slave at the beck and call of Whites”

    I think the word ‘CONVENIENT is most apt, in your cosy world ey??.

    You have somewhere 10-25 million killed more than the Jewish Holocaust (not that I am comparing)…

    And you talk about ‘cultural genocide’ , and no intention to kill the slaves.

    You do biology, then tell us how do such large numbers just vanish off the face of the earth??

    The same people who were involved in the slave trade went to Africa and committed further acts of genocide in Nambia, Congo and in Tasmanians…

    Hmmm!!…I think you best stick to your chosen subject of biology as I said earlier.

    What I do not understand here – not that I am encouraging it, is why all the direct animosity to No_Slappz when in essence there are others who I believe is actually worse than him…

    Its a funny world…

    Like


  404. yeah, Abagond, I know you been working hard….

    Dochartaig

    I worked music most of my life, done a huge smorgashboard of everything to make a living at it.But have always been a jazz drummer and Brazilian music player now with jazz and some dance production

    I had a couple Billboard successes with two productions for a Brazilian singer dancedr and did jingles sometimes and had records picked up , worked alot with dance companies and toured to several contenents and recorded a few records for other people and a bunch on my own lable

    google “potter tillman space rapture ” just to see how one of my earliar records got picked up by another country and some of the distribution

    Like


  405. J sez:
    Any such references than I will be speaking of your wife directly

    Knock yourself out, J. If you feel the need to insult Ana because you think this attacks my masculinity, go right ahead. It will be between you and her and if she chooses to respond (which I doubt, being that she’s not much of a blogger), her words will probably not be as measured as mine.

    Like


  406. 1 Did you go to school for music?
    2 What is best way to get your music out to the public? I live in the middle of nowhere so it is kind of hard for me to get heard.
    3 You may not want to answer this one, but what is the income?
    4 I’m having trouble with the business side of things, just getting things financially rolling seams to be hard.

    Like


  407. Is cultural genocide a completely different process than genocide..?

    Not according to the U.N.

    I think there’s a solid argument that the slave trade and subsequent colonization of Africa was a sincere attempt at genocide if we go by the UN’s definition of that word.

    Like


  408. Cheers ColourofLuv, but your approach shows the problem of history.

    You are the historian, instead of being bold and say taht it is one man who really started all teh argument. the closest you get is to refer to PC speech. This does not represent what has taken place in this dialogue so far.

    Why do I mention this because it is teh same thing which is going on in Thad’s analysis of slavery, its not an accurate representation of the processes that took place.

    The White woman in spite of her inferior position was always a human being. The Black race were not, and in this instance the Black female.

    So anything which could be afforded to the Black women in this type of society would be negated because she was the equivalent to a cow etc.

    Just like you not trying to step on anyone toes and make us all ‘equally culpable’. Thad attempts to do the opposite by making the Black and White female equal.

    He talks about control of sexual reproduction, but this is not the reason why Black females were raped, and is in fact irrelevant to the issue at hand.

    It does become relevant if he takes your position that we are ‘equally cupable’. Then he can say there is no difference between the White woman.

    I hope you understand

    Like


  409. Any comments about your wife Thad, will not be of any academic nature

    Like


  410. B.R. sez:
    Listen, when I say Paulo Russo and Luizao Maia can blow Paralamas off the bandstand, its no insult to them , its just truth. and Paralamas made more money and were more popular .

    And the fact that my point never had a single thing to do about which of these artists were better means nothing to you, huh?

    Did I ever claim or imply that Paralamas were better, B.R.? No. So why you’re so butthurt about this point is beyond me.

    It’s if I said, “Flamengo just lost the national championship” and you started ranting in on me about how I’m saying that Vasco is the best football team in Brazil.

    I mean, I realize that you are committed to your musical tatses, but they were never in question by me. What was going to be used as grist for the mill of “true Brazilian culture” for the masses 20-50 years down the line… THAT was what I was talking about and that was where I said Paralamas would probably beat out Luizão.

    Só.

    Somehow, in your head, this has become a slur I’ve made on the epochal quality of the musicians you love.

    Get over it, man. That wasn’t my point and isn’t now.

    You just tried to make flipant statements about my charactor and you do hide behind semantics and mischaractoisations.

    Hold on a second. What do you mean when you say “hide behind semantics”? Because I’m not sure we have the same understanding of that. For you, I think it means “you use big words”, but I could be wrong. So what do you mean?

    Like


  411. B.R.

    I found an Mp3 of upnorth that is some out of this world drumming, I play piano and guitar, and the piano playing is mind blowing as well.

    Like


  412. As for the issue of cultural genocide.

    What does the U.N say about it??

    I ask because you can have cultural genocide without physically killing people, like when you suppress a groups language.

    So you can commit ‘cultural genocide’ without killing a race of people reaching the 25 million mark?

    What Uncle Milton is doing and you by apparently supporting his lead is to suggest that the murdering of Africans via the slave trade was not quite genocide, which is the usual euro centred approach inadvertently or otherwise

    Like


  413. Any comments about your wife Thad, will not be of any academic nature

    That’s nice, J. I’m sure Ana can handle it and, having seen her in action, I’d rather suggest that you don’t provoke her.

    Your call, however.

    Like


  414. Now here’s the nut of the matter:

    The White woman in spite of her inferior position was always a human being. The Black race were not, and in this instance the Black female.

    First of all, that’s a historical fallacy (phallacy?).

    In the 18th century, the notion of “human being” simply didn’t exist, period. The closet thing one can find to this notion is quite properly labled “mankind” and no, women were most definitely not included in that concept.

    Note that this has indeed been discussed above and it’s one of the reasons why I’d like J to provide us with a definition of “human” before I proceed. It’s not a semantic trick: it’s really relevant. Hoe am I supposed to judge if women in 1800 belonged to a category that wasn’t even invented until the late 19th century and wasn’t used in J’s sense (i.e. human rights) until after WWII?

    Without a prior definition of what we mean by “human”, any answer I can provide is nonsense. Garbage in, garbage out.

    Like


  415. With regard to:

    “1. Where have white women as a collective of people been classified as ’sub-human’ vis-a-vis Black people, but specifically Black women

    If you want more discussion on number one, I’m game. But if this is anything other than a “have you stopped beating your wife” loaded question gambit, J, then please provide me with what you find to be an acceptable definition of “sub-human”.

    No Thad again. You suggest it is a trick on my part.

    However 3 times you have tried this ploy,.

    You ask the person you are debating to come up with a definition – one which you have in your mind and then you pursue your course of argument.

    1. Marcus Garvey Fascism

    2. How do you define rape and the ability to say no

    3. And now what is meant by sub-human??

    You do not want to start because you know your argument will fail.

    Like


  416. To J:

    Why did you choose wikipedia Uncle Milton?
    J’s question –
    My answer:
    It had a CONVENIENT definition….

    Ok, I’ll rephrase my response… why did you have a problem with me citing Wikipedia..?

    And you talk about ‘cultural genocide’ , and no intention to kill the slaves…

    Yes.. I think that is accurate… a slaver would typically not kill a slave unless they rebelled or disobeyed him. Of course there are and have been people who killed and tortured dogs and horses as there were people who killed and tortured slaves.

    A Jew to a Nazi was someone to be killed. A Black slave to a slaver was someone to be bred and used to work the land – similar to a workhorse. 400 Black slaves to a Slave owner represented wealth. 400 Jews to a Nazi represented something that should be eliminated.

    Neither condition of course is or was acceptable.

    Like


  417. What Uncle Milton is doing and you by apparently supporting his lead is to suggest that the murdering of Africans via the slave trade was not quite genocide, which is the usual euro centred approach inadvertently or otherwise

    Jesus, J.

    You know how out of it you are?

    Here’s what I said:

    I think there’s a solid argument that the slave trade and subsequent colonization of Africa was a sincere attempt at genocide if we go by the UN’s definition of that word.

    How in God’s name do you interpret that as saying what happened was “not quite genocide”?

    Like


  418. You ask the person you are debating to come up with a definition – one which you have in your mind and then you pursue your course of argument.

    J, really and truly, no insult: if you don’t have a clear enough idea of what you’re talking about, I can’t be held to blame when your loosely held definitions of what things are come back and bite you on the ass.

    I’ve given a clear reason why we need to define human before discussing this. Here it is again:

    In the 18th century, the notion of “human being” simply didn’t exist, period. The closet thing one can find to this notion is quite properly labled “mankind” and no, women were most definitely not included in that concept.

    Note that this has indeed been discussed above and it’s one of the reasons why I’d like J to provide us with a definition of “human” before I proceed. It’s not a semantic trick: it’s really relevant. How am I supposed to judge if women in 1800 belonged to a category that wasn’t even invented until the late 19th century and wasn’t used in J’s sense (i.e. human rights) until after WWII?

    Without a prior definition of what we mean by “human”, any answer I can provide is nonsense. Garbage in, garbage out.

    Like


  419. Sorry, I see you gave a part response as I was typing this.
    I see you already had your definition of language.

    You teach ‘Philosophy of Science’, are you aware of the suggestion that much of the debates in the sciences etc
    is merely ‘a problem of language’.

    The argument runs something like this language is merely a tool taht humans use to reflect a ‘reality’.

    The language itself is not the reality, nor can it be.

    For instance and bringinging it on a personal level – what words can be found in the English Language that can comfort someone who has lost someone dearly in the most tragic of circumstances.

    We can find words to represent teh feelings, or others can.

    You say you also study Taoism, so none of this should be alien to you.

    When you go into sematics, here read rhetoric etc. I am afraid you are doing exactly what Fanon said:

    ” When one tries to examine the structure of this or that form of exploitation from an abstract point of view, one simply turns one’s back on the major basic problem, which is that of restoring man to his proper place”

    Like


  420. With regard to

    “How in God’s name do you interpret that as saying what happened was “not quite genocide?”

    By simply in the heat of the moment I mis-read your words. So I take back my comments, that you were supporting Uncle Milton’s rhetoric – since you were not!!

    Like


  421. With regard to the question:

    What are the names of African-centered scholars in the U.S. that your students have problems with?

    Most of them don’t know any African-centered American scholars, or even speak English, so they can’t be expected to cite names of American scholars. However, on one occasion, one of my Mozambiquean colleagues (not students) claimed that he though Ron Karenga was doing Africa no good service with his mystification of Kwaanza.

    You had suggested that they did have problems with US African centred scholars and when you made mention of me as being a gringo and inviting me to come on your blog. So this part was not true.

    As for one of the students thinking Karenga was doing Africa no good. I do not think this one view canbe representative of anything unless there is some further to add to his position.

    Like


  422. J,

    I never said the Slave trade was not quite genocide here are my original remarks:

    https://abagond.wordpress.com/2010/03/10/toure-on-sexually-heroic-slave-women/#comment-42771

    “White slavers didn’t want Black slaves to be dead.. they wanted them to be submissive. As I said, more akin to the treatment of livestock. Maybe that is still genocide but it is different than the Nazi or Turkish genocidal actions.”

    Like


  423. When you go into sematics, here read rhetoric etc. I am afraid you are doing exactly what Fanon said:

    ”When one tries to examine the structure of this or that form of exploitation from an abstract point of view, one simply turns one’s back on the major basic problem, which is that of restoring man to his proper place”

    As I said before, that is almost a direct quote from Karl Marx. Fanon was aware of it being such. It is almost the most pure form of rhetoric one can find and Fanon very consciously used it in that way.

    I, however, am not examining this structure from an abstract viewpoint, but from a very clearly positioned one.

    That position, J, sees the oppression of woman as being EQUALLY important as the oppression of Africans – something which you and Abagond, as men, don’t seem to be that concerned with. Rape and coercion, for example, are only an issue for you when they occur in the context of European chattel slavery. When they occur in the context of what you feel to be the “better” slavery – African slavery – you have nothing at all to say on the matter and, in fact, try to handwave the whole issue away as simply not having occurred.

    It seems to me that in doing this, you reduce YOUR position to a simple and very abstract African-centered one and, moreover, an African-centrality that’s not based on the real needs or desires of any African community but on the ideologically constructed concerns of the transnational black elite of which you are part.

    When one takes that sort of abstract, univocal, monolithic and (ultimately) authoritarian position, then the world becomes very simple indeed and good and bad are starkly portrayed. This is why you think that using “eurocentric” as a synonym for “evil” makes good sense.

    The problem with said position is that it has no chance at all of doing what Fanon (and Marx) desire: restore humanity to its proper place. As Fanon points out in “Wretched of the Earth”, it runs the enormous risk of simply swapping one inhuman elite rule for another.

    I can see what the attraction of such an ideology is for you because I believe that you have no problems seeing yourself and your friends as part of the vanguard which will bring about this change.

    I, on the otherhand, am not a vanguardist, nor am I willing to fight for any “central” position, most particularly not the Euro-centered position. I reject the notion of “centrality” as a sort of incipient fascism, or at the very least the percursor to a rigorous social darwinism. I’d like to construct something better that isn’t simply an attempt at flipping what’s provably bad on its head and calling it good.

    Maybe I’m wrong, however. So what, exactly, do you see as “man’s proper place”, J?

    It’s defining THAT which will make Fanon’s point something more than empty rhetoric. Fanon had a very clear idea of what that utopia would look like. So did Marx.

    Do you?

    Because if you don’t, then you are indeed approaching all this from a very abstract point of view.

    Like


  424. You had suggested that they did have problems with US African centred scholars and when you made mention of me as being a gringo and inviting me to come on your blog. So this part was not true.

    “Gringo” is a not a word exclusively applied to Americans, J, but now I see the confusion it must have caused you.

    No, they do not appreciate foreigners (“gringos”) telling them how to be afrocentric.

    Like


  425. White slavers didn’t want Black slaves to be dead.. they wanted them to be submissive. As I said, more akin to the treatment of livestock. Maybe that is still genocide but it is different than the Nazi or Turkish genocidal actions.

    Yeah, I can buy that, too, with two reservations:

    1) It’s still genocide.

    2) The Nazis had no trouble extracting labor out of the people they were going to do away with.

    But you’re correct when you say that the basic idea wasn’t killing all the blacks in the world – just destroying their cultures and existence as independent peoples. “Just”.

    Like


  426. To J:

    I found the definition for genocide as referenced by the UN. (a common working definition that Thad cited..)

    “While a precise definition varies among genocide scholars, a legal definition is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2 of this convention defines genocide as “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”

    By that definition, yes then I would agree the Trans Atlantic Slave trade (as well as some other forms of slavery..) was a form of genocide.

    Like


  427. thanks doct, I brought my sons web site in here with y resume and you tube lincs which you can find by typing in “91849” into search on youtube, if you are interested in my work. I dont mean this as trying to sell something, only satisfy your curiosity

    1 Did you go to school for music?
    2 What is best way to get your music out to the public? I live in the middle of nowhere so it is kind of hard for me to get heard.
    3 You may not want to answer this one, but what is the income?
    4 I’m having trouble with the business side of things, just getting things financially rolling seams to be hard.

    Ill do my best here

    1. I went a year or so and was learning more on the bandstand and great musicians, so I just devoted to that. There are some harmonic things I wish I could know more about now for song writing, but as a player, its about trying to find the best players you can and learning from them.

    2. Im struggling with that question now, the industry is changing as we speak. The internet changes somethings about how you can reach people, but it is also a cyber parking lot

    3.I definitly dont want to get into specifics, but, I made money from some successes, jingle work, and when I had steady paychecks and invested it as I went. It gets hot and cold, you can make a lot of money in short spurts and then its dry.I have several years of my life that I worked 6 days a week 6 sets a night and watched the sun rise too much

    4. yeah, me too , now. Again, this is because the industry right now is going berserk. The best thing is learn as much as you can, that can aply to the bandstand, try to play with good players, that is how you get better and get tips on gigs and studios. If you need to make money, learn the pop songs of the day and some bar or restaurant will pay you.

    Like


  428. With regard to:

    Do you?

    Because if you don’t, then you are indeed approaching all this from a very abstract point of view.

    1. I think you mis-understand Fanon’s position here because earlier he goes on to say:

    “Physically and affectively. I have not wished to be objective. Besides, that would be dishonest: Its not possible to be objective “.

    and thn he qualifies again:

    ”When one tries to examine the structure of this or that form of exploitation from an abstract point of view, one simply turns one’s back on the major basic problem, which is that of restoring man to his proper place”

    So it does not really matter if it is a direct quote from Marx or not.

    Personally the African centred position I utilise in this debate is one of ‘Race First’.

    In the time period we are discussing White men were the ones responsible for oppressing White women. As I said previously, if you study African women in their own indigenous cultural context and try to compare it with european women.

    I think you will find the ‘African’ women was in a relatively betetr position. This is not to say that the ‘African women’ situation was completely ‘perfect’, but I think the fact still remains – especially if you are not caught up in rhetorical arguments over the meaning of words etc.

    Anyhow back to the topic at hand…

    Furthermore the White female’s role cannot be separated from the White nations slavery, and the oppression of the slaves in their daily lives.

    If White women are oppressed, then that is an issue for White men and women to come around the table to discuss and resolve themselves.

    from my position its not my place to having this discussion.

    What my concern should be using this aspect of African centredness, ie Race First, is the Black male, women and the race.

    Once this problem has been solved then I can begin to look outward.

    I think this was essentially Malcolm X thinking.

    So in essence you have followed ColourofLuv.

    In attempting to look at the situation, you misrepresent the facts, and then reach the conclusion

    As a euro-centred scholar you can reach this position
    ‘I see the oppression of woman as being EQUALLY important as the oppression of Africans’

    The African centred position is that the oppression of ‘White women’ cannot be as EQUALLY as important as the oppression of the African race per se?? In fact how can it be?

    Furthermore you are comparing here only 1/2 of a race of people. When a whole race was being condemned, and as it relates to this matter, the Black female in particular.

    This is why I cited Fanon because your very act of reasoning.

    “When one tries to examine the structure of this or that form of exploitation from an abstract point of view, one simply turns one’s back on the major basic problem, which is that of retoring man to his proper place”.

    In essence as I said previously No_Slappz and your position is equally the same side of teh coin.

    No_Slappz admits that there was brutality etc but he does not want to concede before a Black audience that this ‘injustice’ probably was the worst of its kind in history.
    So his position is ‘lets not worry about the past, let’s move forward now’. In essence this stops teh Black audience then ‘beating’ him with what he has referred to as a ‘guilt trip’

    On the other side of the coin, we have you understanding the process of slavery, but never once going into the brutality of the system. This I find instructive because No_Slappz recognizes it. Its not clear whether you do not recognize but do not want to discuss it for fear of shooting yourself in the foot but more on that later. So you then go on to explain that ALL women had it bad and that were treated equally rough, without describing the Orwellian process, ‘all animals on the farm are equal…but some are more equal than others’. By doing so the same process occurs once again. The effect is to prevent the admission, just like in No_Slappz example that Blacks and Black female in this instance were treated ‘worse’ than White females.

    And this in essence is White people’s reaction to the issue of slavery generally. They do not want to discuss the subject, or face up to the reality of it.

    Like


  429. With regard to:

    ‘Gringo” is a not a word exclusively applied to Americans, J, but now I see the confusion it must have caused you.

    No, they do not appreciate foreigners (“gringos”) telling them how to be afrocentric’.

    Just to add I have some idea in my head what the word mean, and it is clear that you were using as a double edge sword of innuendos.

    This disingenuous approach is rather characteristic of the ‘tactics’ you employ on this board when dialoguing.

    For instance when I asked you to give a definition of sub-human. You held out on giving a definition because you had the ‘ace in your hand’ viz. there was no concept of humanity.

    It is not clear why you just did not come out with this fact straight, and therefore stop this long merry-go-round.

    And the issue of calling me gringo, as BR has pointed out this is another one of your tactics, and as I said it was clear why you were using it viz. as a put down like the wife-beating.

    And finally with regard to:

    ‘No, they do not appreciate foreigners (“gringos”) telling them how to be afrocentric’

    This is not the same as saying your African students are against U.S. African centred scholars. Principally because African centred scholars are not into teaching Africans how to be Africans and furthermore that the most principle African centred scholar is Cheikh Anta Diop who originates from Senegal.

    This is why you were eager to get Mira to answer your question about the definition of rape – unfortunately she did not have the wherewithal to see the ‘game’.

    Like


  430. With regard to to:

    But you’re correct when you say that the basic idea wasn’t killing all the blacks in the world

    So here again we have a minimizing of the events, and give supports to what I said about you. Therefore I will withdraw my apology from early this morning.

    From an African centred perspective the aim was to
    kill Blacks by ‘working them to death’

    Again this is what I mean as a White euro-centred scholar
    you can prevaricate over words, but you have great difficulty tellingthe story unequivocally as it is.

    Like


  431. Cool, Uncle Milton….

    Like


  432. j, you wrote:

    “No_Slappz admits that there was brutality etc but he does not want to concede before a Black audience that this ‘injustice’ probably was the worst of its kind in history.”

    I will state whatever I believe at any time to any audience. The last thing that concerns me is the feelings of the readers.

    With respect to your preceding statement, I have given virtually no thought to which of history’s thugs and brutalizers gets the gold medal for inhumanity.

    However, the Spanish Inquisition is in the Top Ten. The Bataan Death March showed the worst aspects of the Japanese. The communist takeovers of China and the countries of the USSR included massive slaughter. Pol Pot in Cambodia gave mass murder his best shot. And then there is Hitler.

    The problem with ranking brutality is the absence of data. And there is also a problem with the reliability of claims. Then there is the specific issue of the black alternate universe, in which many blacks manufacture tales of victimization. Books by these dreamers are sold at sidewalk stands on 125th St in Harlem every day.

    While I accept the notion that some depraved slave owners existed in the US, slaves were assets with market value, which means injuring or killing a slave had financial consequences for the owner. Thus, owners had to weigh the financial and operating cost of their brutality.

    Like


  433. To J – no problem at all. I appreciate your thoughts and don’t take offense. You offer a unique perspective; moreover, an educated one. I enjoy your comments. I may disagree with you, but this does not mean I don’t respect what you have to say. In fact, I admire the fact that you can stand up for what you believe in. I appreciate it when you take the time to answer my questions. Not everyone around this blog does that. You do, and you do it respectfully.

    As far as being “PC”. You hit the nail on the head. Hey, one thing I admire about Thad also is the fact that he is NOT “pc”. (also brings a high intellect and education to the blog – albeit with his fill of mind games, lol) You can tell I haven’t been in Brazil for a while. They don’t know the meaning of “PC” and laugh at the very concept! I have to say, I do agree that this has gotten way out of hand in the U.S. (but that is another suggestion for a new topic)

    B.R. – you need to come down to Miami. If you’re in town, shoot me an email via Abagond. We’ll go have some beers. (Chopp na praia? Belleza!)

    Cheers everybody!

    Like


  434. Cheers for No_Slappz for your Top ten hits.

    What I would say about it, and I say it again, it all depends upon ‘perspectives’.

    Take Hitler for example, and this is a rhetorical question by the way, so you do not have to answer it.

    Was it not his aim to make Germany great? Did he not think whilst other European nations were making hay whilst the sun shines’ they had put Germany to the back – of the farm to struggle – here read the Treaty of Versailles 1919??

    And then with regard to the European Jews did he not think they were ‘inferior’ a game which had been played outside of Europe (and on all peoples of colour) for hundreds of years previosly??

    So what is this all leading to?? Depending on what perspective is adopted, You can get so many differnt positions, and I can bet you would not be in agreement with any of them from your perspective (remember its a rhetorical question).

    There are some who today are sympathetic with Hitler, even if they concede he was extreme, because Germany were disadvantaged after World War 1

    With regard to the European Jews, since this type of ‘brutalit’y had never happened amongst Europeans in recent times.

    Some would view the European Jewish holocaust view as one of the greatest tragedies – if not the greatest of modern times. (Putting aside all this rhetorical debate about language etc)…

    And before I end I would like to say No_Slappz if we are being honest and truthful there is a lack of data, information, knowledge in all areas of human endeavours with respect to gaining knowledge.

    What humans do is ‘fill those gaps’ with reasonable guesses (hypothesis, conjectures etc). The problem with using this caveat. If we being honest – then we do NOT know actually anything.

    However, what actually happens though is taht this caveat is usally brought out when a Jewish person might aver that the holocaust is the worst crime in humanity.

    If we are going to admit that we do not have the data for matters that are ‘uncomfortable. We should also then be able to use it in spite of it validating our ‘comfortable’ position. However, this is not the case – mutatis mutandis

    Like


  435. Thanks ColorofLuv…The respect is mutual!!

    Speaking of you though, tehre is something I have just seen…sorry Abagond he he he

    With regard to:

    ” I dont want to ban you, I want Abagond to untie my hands to wail on you, he took out some great points I made on you with no bad words. And he let you get away with saying “f345 off” for something that was hardly an insult at all”.

    I think this is exactly my position to BR, and I have to agree that Abagond in playing the ‘historian’ (ie deleting the posts) – like Colourof Luv has left the words of ‘history’ on this page as being ‘unrepresentative’.

    Not to worry Abagond…as I have said previously you have a thankless task, and that is even with me included ha ha ha

    On a serious note this is why Fanon says you can’t be ‘objective’. Firstly there is no such thing and if you are being ‘objective’ in clumping all the variables together, you misrepresent the ‘truths’.

    I just wanted to demonstrate this allegory…

    Like


  436. Good Point J on misrepresentation of ‘truths’ ……

    As you noted, Abagond does have a tough task at hand. This blog is his universe, so I’m sure it can be overwhelming sometimes to run this place without any personal biases, which I’m sure does affect certain decisions to delete or not delete, etc… (Understandeably human!)

    Quick question: Not sure what you meant when you said, “Speaking of you though, tehre is something I have just seen…sorry”
    ———– I guess that means you just wanted to comment on the deletion of B.R’s post?

    Like


  437. J,

    Since when has Malcolm X been considered a historian?

    Sometimes your perspective sounds very Euro-centric.

    Like


  438. j, you wrote:

    “And then with regard to the European Jews did he not think they were ‘inferior’ a game which had been played outside of Europe (and on all peoples of colour) for hundreds of years previosly??”

    Based on the content of many of your posts, it is clear you know little about much, especially when it comes to various forms of discrimination and how the game is played.

    German Jews were largely a prosperous and sophisticated group. Nevertheless, Hitler was able to sell the idea of their inferiority — in defiance of their evident success. There is no rational explanation for anti-Jewish sentiment.

    It is proof of human idiocy that in a country that produced Einstein and Freud and a long list of other wildly successful and brilliant Jews that Hitler was able to convince the nation that Jews were inferior.

    As for having the facts about episodes of brutality, well, the Germans were always sticklers for documentation. Hence, much of Holocaust history is illustrated with photos, reports, and testimony provided by those who were there.

    Meanwhile, Torquemada and his pals in the Spanish Inquisition left the world with their torture devices and plenty of documentation.

    However, when it comes to Africa, where cannabalism was practiced, we come up short in the data department. Why? Because until whites arrived and started taking notes, there was no written record of anything in sub-Sahara Africa. That’s what happens when none of the locals can read and write.

    You wrote:

    “However, what actually happens though is taht this caveat is usally brought out when a Jewish person might aver that the holocaust is the worst crime in humanity.”

    Who cares if some individual claims one crime is the worst crime in history? That’s like arguing about the greatest sporting event ever.

    The Holocaust resulted in the deaths of ONE-THIRD of all the Jews in the world. The magnitude of this crime puts it in the All-Time Top Ten.

    Is there some standard for declaring which mass-murder was the Worst in History?

    Meanwhile, the Black Plague wiped out about ONE-THIRD of the population in the known world.

    Like


  439. There has been a lot scholarship done in the US about slavery, historical and anthropological and it is not that difficult to find out what happened during slavery. The abolitionist sought to have free slaves write about their lives and after slavery was abolished, some of their stories were documented by historians. Many who had been slaves lived into the early part of the 20th century.

    Since these arguments here have been mostly held by persons not living in the US, I could not say what is available in their countries, but it seems there have been very few citations that support their arguments.

    Like


  440. J:

    I deleted a ton of messages last night from you, B.R. and Thad. It had nothing to do with any of your viewpoints – and everything to do with you calling each other names. Sometimes when two commenters go at it I just delete everything they say until they calm down. It is like trying to put out a fire.

    If you do not want your comments deleted, then call people by their right names and comment on comments not on commenters.

    Like


  441. B.R., J & Thad:

    If any of you feel I deleted one of your comments last night unfairly and can remember when you posted it or some key phrase that it contained, I can still fish it out of the trash. Nothing is gone for good yet.

    Like


  442. ok Hathor, but what about the 16th century until mid 17 century? If you ask me , that is a very murky period and that is when the paramaters were really set between the white master and his people and the black slave.

    Black slaves were forbiden to practice their culture and religions.

    Lets look at music , for example. Some of the top scholors and players will tell you that the music of the black American slave would have been spirituals, blues with no drums, chain gang work songs and congo square in New Orleans did let drums be played.

    Its hard to beleive that only when the jazz age came in and drums were invented for jazz that all these rhythms and dances just came spilling out of nowhere.

    Its hard to beleive that black slaves didnt hide practicing their culture, rhythms and dances. I suggest there was something going on. No one can really tell you about that in American history.Its not documented, we can only make a murky guess.

    But in Brazil,you can actualy see various living snapshots of how black slaves practiced their culture and mingled it with the indian culture and Portuguese culture rope drums and snares and flutes.You can see it in coco, samba da roda, caboclinho, marakatu,bumba meu boi, cavalo marinho,pifanu and many more, let alone candomble, which was hidden behind catholic saints.

    In America, hand drums were banned and the dances and the rhtyms. You really think they didnt do it at all? Dont you think they were in touch with other Caribean cultures like Cuba on any shipping docks where ships would come in? Its a big mystery about what happened in the 16 century, not well documented at all. And it wasnt suposed to be documented it was suposed to be hidden.You can see alittle how it might have been by seeing those geechee island black people celibrating their culture in a quick shot in that blues documentary by Matrin Scorcese.

    I suggest to you that its the same with how the black slave woman was treated. How it started out (which just isnt documented at all) and how it evolved, until you reach a point 7 generatons later (just to the mid 17 hundreds) that , the white master and his brothers, sons, and cousins could have their way with the young slave girl of their choosing and she is resigned to accept that it will happen.And that could mean many things, of how the black woman might react and deal with that situation and pass it down to her daughters and sisters.

    And these atitudes carried on in many southern white males after slavery was abolished.And that is why it is unique onto itself, related directely to slavery and black people in slavery and cant be lumped in with the plight of the white woman not being able to say no to having sex with her husband. That has to be addressed on its own terms.

    Sure colorofluv, if I ever get up there soon …

    Like


  443. Thanks Abagond, Ill go ahead from square one here

    All I ask is to be aware if someone shoots off a “f&% off”, to let them know its crossing a line or let me respond in kind..

    I somtimes wonder if people who lie or mischaractorise someone or what they have said shouldnt be called out on it too.

    Im not complaining about your blog, the maintaning some leval of decency is good

    Like


  444. Hathor please!!

    If you want to accept that there was no genocide in the transatlantic slave trade.

    However, you would best save your energies and keep it to yourself rather than try to belittle my arguments.

    If you have ‘facts’ then please feel free to come forward.

    Now if I say Malcolm was a ‘knowledgeable historian’ at the very least you could have said it makes me ‘bias’ but ‘eurocentric’…as I shake my head.

    Just for the record the facts are that Malcolm X had a ‘think-tank’ behind him, and so he was fully versed in the areas of his subject matter. One of those who contributed and assisted Malcolm is the well known historian John Henrik Clarke.

    Like


  445. With regard to:

    B.R., J & Thad:

    If any of you feel I deleted one of your comments last night unfairly and can remember when you posted it or some key phrase that it contained, I can still fish it out of the trash. Nothing is gone for good yet.

    I am alright if you do not, I will allow BR to express his own position.

    When I was saying the feeling is mutual. Seeing your name reminded me that your post that we should ALL calm down did not reflect the real ‘perperator’ and so ‘objectivity is in fact a dangerous thing. It was at that point I was reminded by something that BR said…and hence teh allegory.

    Hope this clears it up.

    Like


  446. Thanks No_Slappz

    In a funny way I felt you might resgive a response. You are a bit like Thad are doing me a dis-service, if you do not think I have some knowledge of teh Jewish situation.

    You guys really need to move away from this character assassination, as if assassinating the character changes the ‘historical records/facts’

    I am fully aware of the Jews position in Germany, and it is also for this reason that Hitler chose to discriminate against them ie the claim of appropriation of wealth.

    Another reason he was against the Jews is because of the anti-semetic tradition that flows through Western history.

    There is another reason but this one is difficult to see on a regular basis and that is Hitler had a hatred for the Jews because he felt they had been ‘infected’ with Black blood throughout their history and hence ‘degenerate’.

    As for the Holocaust with regard to the above ‘it makes sense’ against the backdrop of a world consumed and obsessed by the ‘color line’ as WEB DuBois pointed that a sitation like this would occur – it was waiting to happen.

    As for the Holocaust I am sure you are aware that there are those who can be classified as ‘denialist’ and/or revisionist. The latter reduce the numbers and question the ‘intent’ of the Nazi’s, which kind of remind me of what is going on here.

    Some of the arguments runs: You have Jews who actively sided with the Germans. Jews who even sided with the Germans in the concentration camps. Jews who were responsible for their genocide because they did not put up any resistance and the list goes on.

    Now here is a tautology he he he

    Who cares if some individual claims one crime is the worst crime in history? =That’s like arguing about the greatest sporting event ever.

    =

    The Holocaust resulted in the deaths of ONE-THIRD of all the Jews in the world = The magnitude of this crime puts it in the All-Time Top Ten.

    Finally can I bring us back on point. The subject matter we were trying to get to the root of viz. Was the White woman position in the 16th century, onwards the ‘same’ as the Black female slave (leaving aside all specious arguments, about what is humanity etc)??

    Personally, I don’t think it is. This is not to minimise the White women’s position – but and yet at the same time we do not wish to minimise the Black female either.

    I think deep down you agree with me but obviously circumstances being on a board like this cannot allow you to say so.

    Like


  447. Thanks for the links B.R.

    Like


  448. J,

    I didn’t say anything about genocide.
    Are you trying to read my mind now?

    What I did say was that you were wrong about Malcolm X bring a historian, not what Malcolm said.

    I was implying that there are a lot of historians that if you were interested in scholarship you too could study.

    What I meant by Euro-centric is that you know nothing of US history or even understand Black People in America.

    I hope that you read this carefully, so that you understand what I fully mean.

    Like


  449. J,

    One other thing, name dropping does not make a citation.

    Like


  450. j, you wrote:

    “There is another reason but this one is difficult to see on a regular basis and that is Hitler had a hatred for the Jews because he felt they had been ‘infected’ with Black blood throughout their history and hence ‘degenerate’.”

    Once again, the nature of politics eludes you. There is no reason to think Hitler himself “believed” Jews were partly black. But I am certain he would have used the claim of race-mixing to reach his goals.

    Frankly, given the fact that all the Jews in Germany and Poland were killed or imprisoned in the WWII years, it’s obvious Hitler was empowered to make any claims about Jews that suited him. As publications in Germany during those years show, plenty of silly cartoons were circulated.

    Today it is muslim leaders who are some of the most vocal anti-Semites. They do what they do with impunity. For a while, anyway.

    You wrote:

    “Was the White woman position in the 16th century, onwards the ’same’ as the Black female slave (leaving aside all specious arguments, about what is humanity etc)??”

    White women vs black female slaves?

    The question has no meaning.

    Obviously the person in the worst circumstance is the slave. Since many white women were living in countries where freedom was increasing, they were obviously better off than black female slaves.

    However, if you want to compare two similar groups, you might compare the lives of black women in Africa with the lives of white women everywhere.

    If you want to discuss oppressed women, then one of the obvious comparisons is to examine the lives of black female slaves in the US and the lives of muslim women in the middle east.

    Neither situation was pretty. But slavery in the US ended 150 years ago. Today, muslim women are still chattel.

    You wrote:

    “I think deep down you agree with me but obviously circumstances being on a board like this cannot allow you to say so.”

    Bizarrely, you seem to believe something prevents me from expressing certain views here. I am “allowed” to say anything.

    Like


  451. j, you wrote and copied:

    “Now here is a tautology he he he…Who cares if some individual claims one crime is the worst crime in history? =That’s like arguing about the greatest sporting event ever. ”

    I am beginning to see that, in fact, you do NOT know the definition of TAUTOLOGY.

    The preceeding example is an example of an issue that is MOOT. Debatable. Unresolvable. Purely personal opinion.

    A tautology is something else.

    Like


  452. Cheers No_Slappz!!

    With regard to your post which I have edited as follows:

    “j, you wrote:

    “There is another reason but this one is difficult to see on a regular basis and that is Hitler had a hatred for the Jews because he felt they had been ‘infected’ with Black blood throughout their history and hence ‘degenerate’.”

    Once again, the nature of politics eludes you.

    I am afraid you misconstrue my intentions here. As far as I know, and can remember as well to be honest, Hitler thoughtthe original Jews were Whites. However, because teh Jews had been scattered across so many differing lands they had mixed with those who were ‘inferior’ and one of those groups of ‘races’ that he had in mind were Black people. This is my point not the one you thought I was thinking.

    As for the persecution of the Jews that first occured in Germany in the early 30s well before the invasion of Poland.

    As for my perception of you. I think you have it well wrong.
    My own personal view of you is that I think you are sincere – if not a little ‘misguided’ – but what matters most is the sincerity.

    I am not sure I can say this about others on here though, who should know better, or at least you think they ought to.

    Like


  453. And I forgot to add No_Slappz can’t you give me a little artistic licence with the tautology…Its the only bit of real fun I have around here he he he???

    Like


  454. With regard to your comments Hathor,

    My mind goes back to one of your comments here

    he he he

    “Just call it intitution”

    Like


  455. j,

    I have no idea about Hitler’s exact thoughts. But I know what he created and I know what Nazi Germany did. Whether he believed every word of Mein Kampf, or simply wrote a book designed to compel Germans into action, I do not know. Don’t care, either.

    But I do care about the lessons derived from these national political calamities.

    That’s why black leaders like Charles Barron here in Brooklyn should get the boot. Barron, a city councilman (a position of very little power, but a position offering a great soapbox) has said publicly more than once that he “hates whites and especially hates Jews.”

    He has supported teaching ebonics in public schools, and he believes whites owe blacks reparations.

    His constituents regularly reward him with re-election. He’s a prince.

    As for the post you “edited”, well, it is gibberish.

    Like


  456. J, one of the things that bothers me about you is the fact that you really don’t read peoples’ posts carefully. Like last night when you jumped down my throat for supposedly defending genocide.

    Here’s a couple of howlers from your recent post:

    I think you will find the ‘African’ women was in a relatively betetr position. This is not to say that the ‘African women’ situation was completely ‘perfect’, but I think the fact still remains – especially if you are not caught up in rhetorical arguments over the meaning of words etc.

    So the book you choose to base your analysis of African slavery on clearly states that slave women were used for their reproductive functions and that they were forced to do this. Rape, J. But to you, rape under African slavery… well, that just isn’t a big deal, is it?

    And you’ve got the gall to quote Fanon on how “abstraction” leads people to accept inhuman behavior? Your very abstract and essentially romantic “afrocentrism” is precisely this sort of thing, J.

    Furthermore the White female’s role cannot be separated from the White nations slavery, and the oppression of the slaves in their daily lives.
    If White women are oppressed, then that is an issue for White men and women to come around the table to discuss and resolve themselves.

    Horsesh@#, J. That presumes a community of interest based on race which simply doesn’t exist. The same community of interest, however, that fascists presumed exists.

    What my concern should be using this aspect of African centredness, ie Race First, is the Black male, women and the race.

    In other words, fascism, pure and simple. That same sentiment could have come straight out of the mouths of Hitler or Mussolini or, in fact, any of the world’s major nationalist dictators over the last 70 years. This is what “centering” politics of imaginary racial communities leads to. And OK, fine, J: be fascist if you like. Just don’t quote me Marx and Fanon on “situating man in his proper place” when it is quite obvious that your ideology contemplates nothing of the kind.

    On the other side of the coin, we have you understanding the process of slavery, but never once going into the brutality of the system.

    Bull@#$% again, J. I have gone into long and detailed descriptions regarding the brutality of the system. My entire point has been that it was more brutal than the concept of “rape” can comprehend. I have made this point about a dozen times now and offered up detailed reasons why I believe this, so there is no way you couldn’t have gotten this point by now.

    So you then go on to explain that ALL women had it bad and that were treated equally rough…

    Another lie. J, if you’re such a sh@#-hot african-centered historian, why do you feel the need to reduce other peoples’ positions to parodies before you engage with them? Not once have I said “all women were treated equally bad”. What I have said is this: the wide-ranging concept of rape that Jasmin and Mira subscribe to does not adequately cover sexual relations in slavery. If structural coercion is supposedly rape, if “not being able to say no without suffering sanctions” is supposedly rape, then we must logically conclude that almost all sex during this period was rape.

    Now, I happen to believe that there were HUGE differences between black slave and white free women experience. In fact, I’ve described several of the brutalities that black women were subjected to that white women weren’t. I’ve even said that if we define rape as “knock ‘em down and beat ‘em until they stop resisting sex”, then definitely black women suffered more of that sort of rape.

    What WASN’T particular to the black female experience was coercion based on the social structure. What wasn’t particular to the black female experience was having one’s reproductive capacity owned by a man. This was common to almost all female experience during the time.

    The problem, J, is that you want to have your cake and eat it to: you want as wide a definition of rape as possible – preferably one that will take in ANY sexual relations between slave women and free white men. And yet at the same time, you want that wide-ranging definition to be SPECIFIC to the black experience when it certainly isn’t.

    My point is that you can logically only have one: either rape needs to be defined in a more specific and violent fashion, similar to how it was defined back in 1800, or rape encompasses a huge amount of all sex that was going on back then.

    Saying this is most certainly not saying “free white women = black slave women”.

    For instance when I asked you to give a definition of sub-human. You held out on giving a definition because you had the ‘ace in your hand’ viz. there was no concept of humanity. It is not clear why you just did not come out with this fact straight, and therefore stop this long merry-go-round.

    You have yourself to thank there, J. I made this point about there being no relevant definition of humanity that we could use about 3 times above, with both you and Mira. If you aren’t going to listen to what a person is saying and keep insisting that they tell you something, then you only have yourself to thank for the merry-go-round.

    Personally, however, I think we CAN use a definition of humanity. I have given it above, three times now. You apparently haven’t seen it yet, so here it goes again:

    The closest thing to “humanity” back in 1800 was “natural rights” theory and these did indeed exclude women and a slew of other folks other than blacks. When we move onwards in time, to the end of the 19th century and the heyday of social darwinism, we again see women (as well as a series of other white folks) tossed in the same category with blacks: unevolved. By the late 19th century, science no longer believed blacks were “inhuman”.

    So a more relevant question would be: “Have groups of whites ever been tossed in the same subhuman categories as blacks?” Yes, they most certainly have: as non-bearers of natural rights in the 18th and 19th centuries and as “subevolved” in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

    This is much more relevant than your “human” question.
    Now, this doesn’t mean that black and white experiences are equal. What it DOES mean is that the logic behind what we call “racism” has been expressed in other forms and against other groups, including white groups.
    Sometimes, J, I think you’re a bit like those Jewish activists who believe that the only genocide which ever occurred happened to Jews in 1940s Germany.

    This is one of the fallacies that “X-centered” thinking creates when it’s taken to radical extremes. It fuels the notion that only “x” group has ever really suffered and that “x” group thus has the right to pretty much do whatever the hell it wants. This was Hitler’s logic in Nazi Germany and it’s today’s Zionist extremist logic as well.

    And the issue of calling me gringo, as BR has pointed out this is another one of your tactics, and as I said it was clear why you were using it viz. as a put down like the wife-beating.

    “Gringo” is not and never has been an insult in Brazil. It’s simply a synonym for “foreigner”. If I were to call you a “stupid gringo”, you might have a point. If I were to say you were incapable of ever understanding anything about Africa because you are a gringo, you might have a point. When I say that my African students do not appreciate gringos who do not understand the history and cultures of their countries tell them what is “truly African”, I am neither insulting you, nor gringo-baiting you.

    The “wife-beating” has already been explained: it’s a common thing to say when someone hands you a loaded question, J You’re a good enough rhetoricist, I thought you’d recognize it. And no, I’m not making this up: do a Google on “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?” and see how many links you get to “loaded question”. It’s the classic example.

    Principally because African centred scholars are not into teaching Africans how to be Africans and furthermore that the most principle African centred scholar is Cheikh Anta Diop who originates from Senegal.

    See, this is the kind of crap my students don’t appreciate. You’re claiming that the “principle African-centered scholar” is a guy who died 27 years ago, whose main works were done in the 1950s and ‘60s. You’re implying that not much of interest has come out of Africa in the past half-century, J.

    Like


  457. B.R. says:
    Thanks Abagond, Ill go ahead from square one here

    All I ask is to be aware if someone shoots off a “f&% off”, to let them know its crossing a line or let me respond in kind..

    If you quit with the ad hominem attacks, you’ll have no cause to hear “fu$% off” from me.

    Seriously, B.R. I have not once said you are incapable of understanding things because you are a musician. I have not once called your comments “typical musician’s garbage” or what have you. And yet you are constantly dismissing things I say by making ad hominem attacks on my profession.

    Like


  458. J sez:
    There is another reason but this one is difficult to see on a regular basis and that is Hitler had a hatred for the Jews because he felt they had been ‘infected’ with Black blood throughout their history and hence ‘degenerate’.

    Can we get a source on this please, J?

    Or is this another one of your fabricated facts on the order of “women weren’t raped during African slavery”?

    Like


  459. With regard to

    I am afraid you misconstrue my intentions here. As far as I know, and can remember as well to be honest, Hitler thought the original Jews were Whites. However, because teh Jews had been scattered across so many differing lands they had mixed with those who were ‘inferior’ and one of those groups of ‘races’ that he had in mind were Black people. This is my point not the one you thought I was thinking.

    “It was and it is Jews who bring the Negroes into the Rhineland, always with the same secret thought and clear aim of ruining the hated white race by the necessarily resulting bastardization, throwing it down from its cultural and political height, and himself rising to be its master”.

    Mein Kampf

    Like


  460. With regard to:

    Or is this another one of your fabricated facts on the order of “women weren’t raped during African slavery”?

    Was this question of yours an ‘attempt to ridicule’??

    Since you could have just asked the question witthout adding the appendage “WOMEN WERE NOT RAPED DURING AFRICAN SLAVERY”

    I am not quite sure where I said that, and if I was like you, I would ask you to show me where I said this…

    Now thinking about it. Can you kindly show me where I did quote this??

    he he he

    Like


  461. And still regarding your NOT SO subtle attempt at ridicule. Check this psychoanalysing:

    There is a number of things I have observed in our dialogue which places you and your politics in a ‘camp’

    Here goes:

    1. Fascism originates with European people but yet Marcus Garvey is a fascist

    2. The position of the Black female ‘slave’ is relatively worse than the position of the White ‘free’ female – They are the same

    3. On the position of White fear that would in effect in essence benefit Black people is equivalent to I hate all Whites who acts like spokesmans for other Whites

    4. Point 3 is reinforced again – well for me at least – in your dialogue with Macon D who is trying to remove aspect of
    white fear/white privilege leads to an attempt to insult., belittle etc.

    Now what does this all it means??

    Simply it means you fall into the class of the liberal. You have an ideal of yourself, and how you should be etc.

    However, you are so steeped in defending European/White culture and not realising that much of European/White culture will have to be ‘destroyed’ before there can be any equality between the races – but this is not something which you want, or so desire, in spite of what you may say here…

    Like


  462. As far as I know, and can remember as well to be honest, Hitler thought the original Jews were Whites. However, because teh Jews had been scattered across so many differing lands they had mixed with those who were ‘inferior’ and one of those groups of ‘races’ that he had in mind were Black people. This is my point not the one you thought I was thinking.

    Seriously, J, I’ve read a LOT about Hitler and a lot of stuff by Hitler. I’ve never seen him specify blacks as a constituent element of jewishness, so if you’ve got an actual citation there, I’d love to see it.

    Oddly enough, Nazi Germany didn’t seem to have too many problems with blacks in the abstract. Look at Leni Reifenstahl’s ethnographic work in Africa. Nazi racial theory was based on the idea that each race had a “natural” land and the Nazi’s were quite happy to accept (again, at least in theory) that Africa was the blacks’.

    The problem with Jewishness and mongrelism comes from the belief that Jews were a bit like cuckoos: they supposedly invaded the “natural range” of other human subspecies, pushing the “real children” out. That’s what Hitler meant by “mongrelism” in the Jewish case, not that they were necessarily mestiços.

    In fact, the Nazis believed that Jewish blood has this ultimately tainting and powerful nature to it: it overwhelmed everything else (a bit like U.S. white racists feel about black blood). So a black jew wasn’t a mestiço to the Nazis: he was simply a Jew.

    Was this question of yours an ‘attempt to ridicule’??

    Yes, but in a good sense. It’s an attempt to get you to stop and think about what you really know instead of just saying s#$% that seems cool but which has little basis in reality.

    Here’s your comments on rape and Africa:

    “Rape was only one of the horrible things that happened to slaves”.

    ..but not necessarily so in parts of Africa.

    And also here…

    There are examples on the African continent where this type of slavery did not lead to rape

    My response to both of these was “Name one example”, to which you replied with your link to “Slavery in Africa” – a book which clearly situates the coerced use of female reproductive power as the PRIMARY motive behind African slavery.

    You then tried to dodge this by implying that this was only true for “those societies influenced by Islam”.

    I then showed you that, no, it was ESPECIALLY true in matrilinear sub-saharan and southern African societies.

    Again, if you can find me one clear example of African slavery that did not involve rape or the coerced sexual exploitation of women, I’d love to hear about it.

    Like


  463. Thad sais “Seriously, B.R. I have not once said you are incapable of understanding things because you are a musician. I have not once called your comments “typical musician’s garbage” or what have you. And yet you are constantly dismissing things I say by making ad hominem attacks on my profession.”

    There you go again, making really stupid comments that have no basis in reality

    quit playing games , Thad, show me once where I made ad hominem attacks on your profesion. You are a major insulter here . I implied you are incapable of understanding certain things about music because you are not a musician.Have you ever workedon a bandstand getting paid to play an intrument?

    Your problem is you cant take it when your arguments are pointed out as weak, you start insulting and getting flipant and attacking peoples charactor. I definitly defered to your knowledge about Fanon, but you just went on and on flapping your cyber lips about things in music that you just dont have the profesional experiance to talk about.You dont have the ears to define the similarities of various sub saharan African beats, but the youtubes I brought in established it with out a doubt.

    Show me once where I implied things acacemic are “garbage”.What I did say is , sometimes academic aproaches can get too cumbersum like how they used to ruminate on how many fairies can you fit on the head of a pin and that it is definitly not the be all end all of how things are. And it was part of my point that that is what was happening in the arguments going on in this thread.

    Academia doesnt translate on the bandstand. There is nothing in Hermanos book that I can take directly on the bandstand and use as my profesion as a drummer..is there? Even direct music books have to be re- interpreted on the bandstand as to how to express groove feelings.

    And the subject here is the same way, there are things the academic aproach just doesnt cover, and, I have pointed that out.

    So you wake up

    and the way you have used “gringo” has been the put down insulting way. You called me the typical old gringo atitude.. do you want me to go and bring it inhere ? just back off

    Address the fundimentals of my arguments here.

    Like


  464. “I’ve met people with “old gringo” syndrome before, B.R., but I’ve got to hand it to you: you take the cake.”

    how about that for starters ,Thad

    Like


  465. “This is what I find ironic about this whole deal: gringos like you ……. didn’t “discover” these sounds up on the hill, friend: you had some middle class Brazilian musical snob take you to them and tell you in suitably hushed tones that this was “real roots Brazilian culture”

    ” And I bet that you do not live here. I bet this is your situation: you live in an east coast american metropolis and come down here a few months out of every year. Maybe occasionally you spend up to sex months here. You may even own property here. But Brazil is not your home, nor are you a member of the res publica. That’s my best guess. Given that you hide behind anonymity, we’ll never”

    what a bundh of insulting crap coming from you, Thad

    Like


  466. “But think about this for a sec: you are a gringo who can’t read and write Portuguese after supposedly 20+ years living in this country, and yet you present yourself as an expert on what is and what is not truly Brazilian music. ”

    just look at this toilet waste

    you have tried to insult me various times using “gringo”

    I read your Portugues and translated it….I mean how much of this insulting false mischaractorising crap do I have to put up with

    Like


  467. ” you, like a lot of gringos, seem to feel qualified to tell Brazilians what’s truly “original”, “unique” and “worthwhile” in their culture and these things are always those which you presume have been brought over, mostly untouched, from Africa.”

    you keep using gringo over and over as some sort of put down and then you totaly mischaractorise what I said about sub sahara African rhtyms

    I dont knwo what is worse, your flipant “gringo” referances or how you constantly mischaractorise what I said

    Like


  468. Wait, I thought Thad was a gringo too.

    Like


  469. With regard to your comments Thad…

    Still on with the psychoanalyzing.

    Thad personally I think you are ‘intellectually dishonest’ on this board.

    Your aim is essentially to ‘score points’ through rhetoric, mis-quoting people to serve your end. And the only time you appear to behave reasonably is when you are exposed for the ‘character’ you represent on this board.

    I think the classic is before entering into a discussion is for you to ask your ‘opponent’ and this is the correct word to use in my opinion, so as to ‘entrap’ them.

    And then you have the temerity to say after being ‘found out’. You go on say with regard to my question:

    “Was this question of yours an ‘attempt to ridicule’??…”Yes, but in a good sense”

    With regard to the issue of Hitler, I re-explained my position to No_Slappz and I gave you the quote from Mein Kampf. Are you familiar with that quote about Hitler and the Blacks??

    If you are not? Why not come out and just say it?? It appears as if you do not know the quote and hence you
    asking of me again to show the links between Jews and Blacks.

    As for the issues you raise about Africa and slavery. Part of the problem occurs because you are so steeped in Eurocentric thinking that you want to equate African slavery with European chattel slavery as if they are the same thing.

    And in essence pursue a similar type of argument that tehre is no difference between the two forms of slavery.

    I am not even going to discuss that when you quoted me, you could not quote me without cutting and splicing my words to create the (dishonest) thesis you have in your mind.

    I am not sure if you will understand but here goes. African slavery or the system of slavery pre-dated Islam which arrived on the continent in the 7th century.

    So if you are going to look at the topic. A scholar could:

    a. Look at only those elements that were indigenous to Africa

    b. Look at those elements that were influenced by islamic culture hence 7th century AD

    c. To look at both.

    Finally and I will repeat it again I highlighted the book to show that African slavery was not the ‘chattel’ slavery that occured in the West. I am not alluding to any specious arguments either. This in the context that all forms of slavery in my opinion is no good.

    Furthermore it is known that whereas ‘European slavery’ was ‘chattel slavery’. Arab slavery in Africa was not quite that. This does not mean that there are no ‘horror stories’ etc but it is just an attempt to give an analysis without recourse to specius arguments etc.

    Arab slavery was about essentially taking as many females slaves as possible. this tehy did in Africa and also within Europe. This is why I highlighted the impotanceof making distinctions.

    As I said before you are a scholar trained in teh old school tradition of eurocentricism. So when it comes to thinking and analyzing from another perspective, it is impossible for you to do it. Notwithstanding that your ‘liberal’ politics will not allow you to do so neither.

    I hope this has clarified.

    Like


  470. And I will say you are being ‘intelluctually dishonest’ to B.R in your dialogue to by the way

    Like


  471. Wait, I thought Thad was a gringo too.

    Personally I would add that he also comes across as the great paternalistic White man carrying the ‘civilizing mission’, which is the ‘White man’s burden’ to the ‘natives’.

    Like


  472. you can substitue “foreigner ” in there and it still looks like a condascending insulting put down

    And like I said, I dont know what is worst, your condascending “gringo” referances or mischaractorising me and my life , or , mischaractorising what I have said

    So you are using “gringo” in the put down insulting mannor

    Like


  473. Abagond, yeah, aint that a kick!!

    Of course, Thad will tell you he now is a Brazilian citizen, but, tell that to the Brazilian militant nacionalists who would treat him the same way as racist whites treat Cubans who became American citizens…

    Just check out Miami Heralds South American forum comments coming from these white racists

    Like


  474. By the way, for those folks who think that I am exagerating the masculinism of some of the people posting here, check out “BlackandGerman”‘s ideas about how children should be the property of the husband:

    http://butterflysquash.wordpress.com/

    This is one of the reasons “centrism” doesn’t work very well. Being “centered” on one identitary position alone and using that as the be-all and end-all focus of your world-view allows you to deal with one – and only one – form of injustice. Too often, it allows you to ignore others.

    Like


  475. B.R. sez:
    Thad, show me once where I made ad hominem attacks on your profesion. You are a major insulter here.

    When you disqualify what I say with the adjective “academic” – as if said adjective had anything at all to do with my opinion – you are making an ad hominem attack.

    Like


  476. Wait, I thought Thad was a gringo too.

    Precisely.

    Like


  477. By the way, for those folks who think that I am exagerating the masculinism of some of the people posting here, check out “BlackandGerman”’s ideas about how children should be the property of the husband:

    http://butterflysquash.wordpress.com/

    Well, she’s using the Bible and God to back up her ideas… we all know how that goes.

    Not that I ever agreed with her ideas at all, but I won’t go into that since she’s not here to defend herself.

    Like


  478. Right, the proper place for that is on her own blog.

    Like


  479. With regard to the issue of Hitler, I re-explained my position to No_Slappz and I gave you the quote from Mein Kampf. Are you familiar with that quote about Hitler and the Blacks??

    If you are not? Why not come out and just say it?? It appears as if you do not know the quote and hence you
    asking of me again to show the links between Jews and Blacks.

    No, J, I am not familiar with any quote by Adolph Hitler linking Jews and blacks and I’ve read a lot about Hitler and race. So thanks for posting that quote. However, I don’t think Hitler was talking about Jews being mixed with blacks. His point on “bastardization” was not limited to blacks but to ANY non-aryan peoples, including (most notoriously) the slavs.

    As for the issues you raise about Africa and slavery. Part of the problem occurs because you are so steeped in Eurocentric thinking that you want to equate African slavery with European chattel slavery as if they are the same thing.

    No, I do not believe that they were the same thing. I DO believe that both european chattel slavery and african slavery involved the rape of women as a matter of course. The book you’ve linked us to above shows that. This is not the same thing as believing that the two institutions were identical.

    As I said before you are a scholar trained in teh old school tradition of eurocentricism. So when it comes to thinking and analyzing from another perspective, it is impossible for you to do it. Notwithstanding that your ‘liberal’ politics will not allow you to do so neither.

    Bullsheet, J. Look up “post-colonialism”. Just because your understanding of historiography stops in the mid-1970s doesn’t mean that the discipline itself has been standing still.

    I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: I reject “centering” on one single aspect of the human condition, whether it be Europe, Africa, race, gender, or whatnot. What I’d like to try to achieve is intersectionality. Maybe you should look that word up, too.

    Like


  480. Well, she’s using the Bible and God to back up her ideas… we all know how that goes.

    My point being is that this is what happens when you use any sort of “centerism” as the be-all and end-all of a socio-historical analysis.

    Like


  481. ^What were you saying about the “masculinism” of some of the commenters?

    Like


  482. B.R. – I wouldn’t get too worked up about some Gringo calling you a Gringo or over using the term. (For whatever my gringo opinion is worth!)

    You the man when it comes to music!!! Don’t let this stuff get too personal. Now, 8 more minutes and its Happy Hour, so I will be taking a beer break ladies & gents.

    CHEERS — SAUDE!

    Like


  483. What were you saying about the “masculinism” of some of the commenters?

    I would define “masculinism” as the belief, conscious or otherwise, in the centrality of the male experience to history. This is what I see J doing when he implies that African slavery, because it wasn’t chattel slavery, somehow involved less rape than European slavery.

    As for “gringo”, it’s hardly an insult. Don’t know whay B.R. sees it that way. Sure, I think he’s suffering from “old gringo” syndrome, but that’s one gringo to another speaking there.

    Like


  484. What is “old gringo” syndrome?

    Like


  485. Cheers Thad,

    I know what post-colonial discourse entails. Although it involves a wide range of issues. and different scholars. It does not mean it cannot be ‘euro-centred’.

    For instance is not Paul Gilroy a post-colonialist scholar, or at least his work involves it?? Personally I would classify him as a euro centred scholar.

    As for the issue of ‘centrsm’, this is related to the issues of ‘alliances’ in the real world. The real world informs us that different groups, or races always put themselves first, depending on what cause they are advanicing.

    I do not know of any such group that HAS been all-inclusive and/or ARE all-inclusive. It just does not work that way.

    So in essence to clump everyone as being the same in revolutionary term is ‘politically dangerous’ for those who have less ‘socio-racio-economic-gendered power’.

    This process of ‘intersectionality’ also fails to re-dress the power balances in the world. For the reason I outlined above about having a vested interest in the society and not understandingand realising that some aspect of the ‘structures of society’ will have to be ‘destroyed first’ if equality is to take place.

    Like


  486. With regard to:

    What is the old Gringo Syndrome??

    Perhaps this may shed some light:

    Gringo” is not openly deprecatory. Though it can be used as an insult

    In Brazil, Not All Gringos Are Created Equal

    Like


  487. In Brazil, Not All Gringos Are Created Equal by Thad

    http://www.brazzil.com/2005-mainmenu-79/155-august-2005/9362.html

    Like


  488. For instance is not Paul Gilroy a post-colonialist scholar, or at least his work involves it?? Personally I would classify him as a euro centred scholar.

    J, you classify EVERYONE who disagrees with you as a eurocentered scholar, whether they are or not. And your own “african-centeredness” seems to involve romantic projection onto a continent which – as far as I can tell – you’ve never actually visited.

    Like


  489. You cannot have it both ways Thad,

    You said I was caught in the historiography of mid 1970s.

    I have disproved your contention, as disappointing to you as this may be. Though I think you knew that before you
    made your false assertion

    Like


  490. Uhn? Sorry, J. I think insisting that Afrocentrism is a superior form of historical viewpoint than Eurocentrism and that everything must needs be either/or is pretty damned 1978.

    You don’t seem aware of the turn to the post-modern which has happened since then. You still believe in centering, neh?

    Like I said: 1970s.

    Like


  491. I think you are beliittling Black and African centred scholars, academics etc – but it comes as no surprise to me for the reasons outlined above.

    Like


  492. “Well, she’s using the Bible and God to back up her ideas… we all know how that goes.

    Not that I ever agreed with her ideas at all, but I won’t go into that since she’s not here to defend herself.”

    It’s fine to use the Bible to back up your ideas, the problem is when you pick and choose to whatever suits you.

    I’ve tried to have a discussion on that blog and when I didn’t agree, the comments became personal. I won’t be back there.

    Like


  493. ^I’m replying to you in the “Why I am a Christian” post; it will be more on topic there.

    Like


  494. nah colorofluv, lets not forget how low Thad here stoops, and , used his little “gringo” ploy to mischaractorise me and what i said , and including his “f#$% off” for nothing.

    When a Brazilian pulls that “gringo” bu#$%%t on me, I walk throug them and over them like they are dog doo, unless they are in a passing car or bus, screaming some stupid bs like “get out of my land, gringo”, and they are lucky they are moving.

    Abagond, all I can tell you is look how Thad uses it as some insult, dont let his “precisly, im a gringo too” fool you, it was meant as a put down . Look how he coupled it with charactor assasination and mischaractorising what I said. Go ahead and substiture “foreiner ” and look how it looks, condacsending and degrading.( oh man dont get me wrong, I love it when fool wants to go there, I know just how to deal with that crap)

    Some of what he said is just plain disgusting and I take note of it. o cara, the quotes are right there as he tried to deny it . I just asume that Thad doesnt care that he has lost a lot of credibility in my eyes, I just dont trust much of what he sais.

    i dont want friends on here, i dont need to be accepted,im here to make points, listen and vent and express.

    And by the way , color, I disagree with you about quotas for Universities. There is definitly a white Brazilian privledged world that excludes blacks in Brazil from entering. Its in the media, its in the airports, its in the universities, its in the high end clubs and social gatherings.Any quotas that will get more blacks into the universities will be welcome ( please , spare me of how you would define black, I travel in Brazil for tours and I guarentee you , most of the people on the airlines are so white they would be accepted in a ku klux klan rally).

    You starting to come up short with this against quotas and trying to say its hard to define color in Brazil. Id like you to ask your wife what she thinks about quotas. I dont knowabout your wife but my wife has encountered discrimination and humiliation and racism because she is black.

    Like


  495. With regard to my own comments

    I think you are beliittling Black and African centred scholars, academics etc – but it comes as no surprise to me for the reasons outlined above

    in response to:

    And your own “african-centeredness” seems to involve romantic projection onto [the] continent

    Is not your response about a ‘romantic projection onto the continent’ one used regularly by scholars like Leftkowitz and Howe.

    These same scholars also regularly belittle Black and African centred scholars. The very point that I was trying to demonstrate.

    For one who criticises African centred scholarship it is clear that you do not really know much about the theories and ideas.

    For a long time you have been advocating and lecturing to others on teh Fanon post, about commentators should read a book before commenting upon it.

    You have evven labelled this accusation towards me, and we find you exactly in the same situation.
    As I said previously this highlights the ‘intellectual dishonesty’ that characterises you and your words here…

    Like


  496. j

    I would like to let you know that down here in Brazil right now, there is a huge argument about “quotas ” for black Brazilians.

    I want to inform you of some points of veiw and you can draw your own conclusions, I in no way want to say Thad or Color are taking these positions, they can speak for themselves if they want.

    But there is a predominantly white Brazian crowd who are seriuously against these quotas for black Brazilians.

    You will even here from some nationalists that this is all brought down by militant African Americans ( the gringos), sponsored by ngos and the Ford Foundation (really? as if the Ford Foundation and black American militants had anything to do with the absolutly horrendous situation that has some incredibly low percentage of black Brazilians going to the Universities . And ,like they could really spear head such a movement anyway).

    There is also a large contigent of people , mostly white , I guarentee, linked to political movements , that especialy beleive in a socialistic agenda (not judging that , just stating the facts), linked with nationalists , who try to convince the people that Brazil doesnt have a racial problem, its just a social problem and class problem.

    They do all the can to try to take attention off racial issues and push it into social and political issues.

    At the same time, laws have been passed that make it a crime to make racist comments to other people, and, that could be a form of pc put into action the Brazilian way.

    Personaly, I dont think Brazil needs to follow any other modal how to deal with their racial issues. No one needs to tell Brazil how to deal with their problems. But , at the same time, the exclusion of black Brazilians from huge amount of areas in society, like the media on tv, universities, any kind of upward mobility that would enable them to fly on planes, like white Brazilians, or be able to live in condos that are mostly white etc ,is way overdue and is shameful on some levals.

    I dont want racial devide like the USA is so good at but Im all for quotas to get black Brazilians into universities as soon as posible.

    Maybe some of these arguments sound familiar to you on here…

    Like


  497. …these quota arguments are a lot about university quotas

    Like


  498. I think you are beliittling Black and African centred scholars, academics etc – but it comes as no surprise to me for the reasons outlined above.

    J, in all your time here you have cited precisely ONE “afro-centered scholar” as your inspiration and that guy’s contribution to human knowledge was basically to apply a tired and discredited European theory on how culture moves about the planet to Africa.

    Would you like to tell me what other great Africanist scholars I’m belittling, please?

    Like


  499. B.R., I am in favor of affirmative action in Brazil but NOT racial quotas.

    Er, you ARE aware that affirmative action in American universities doesn’t involve racial quotas, right?

    Like


  500. There are several major problems with quotas, the first being that – as Justice Black (IIRC) pointed out in Bakke versus California, 1978 – they really aren’t compatible with a democratic republic.

    More concretely, having quotas does us no good unless we also find means of RETAINING said students in the university, which given the Brazilian government’s current scholarship policy doesn’t seem likely.

    Finally, like it or not who is black in Brazil is, indeed, an issue. At least 60% of the country has some degree of African ancestry, probably more. So how are we going to decide this? Because I can tell you right now, B.R., I have already begun to meet students who are phenotypically white but who tried to get in under quotas dues to a black great-grandma or something.

    I think the ONLY way around this, actually, is to model our system on the U.S. system – not copying it, exactly, but looking at it a lot closer than we have been.

    Like


  501. BtW, the Ford Foundation’s AA program is a very good example of what I speak. Meant to give scholarships to black students, by the end of its existence, most of its students were medium to light brown – color categories which, by the way, are under-represented inm the university, but nowhere near the level blacks are.

    The problem with this is “who’s black”? I mean, there are people like my wife who are pretty certainly afro-descendent and there are relatively few people like her in universities. But there are plenty of light brown people who, up until now, have been calling themselves “white”. Anthropology’s proven that Brazil’s race system is shifting and contextual and not fixed or essentialized. I myself have plenty of “afrodescendant” friends and students who have “white” written on their birth certificates.

    If we thus make a quotas system based upon self-ascription, the majority of Brazilians can easily get in and it will be precisely the most well-prepared (read richest and generally lightest) of those Brazilians who’ll pass the vestibular.

    If it’s not based on self-ascription, then who gets to decide who’s “really” black and based on what?

    If this thing is not carefully planned and thought out, we’ll end up simply re-arranging the upper 40% of Brazil’s way of defining itself. Everyone who has any african ancestry at all will declare themselves “black” for quotas purposes and will continue on their merry way for all other intents and purposes. This is, in fact, something similar to what’s happened with affirmative action among native americans in the U.S. (recall that unlike the black/white divide, native americans are allowed to be racially mixed and declare themselves as such).

    I myself support an affirmative action system based on:

    1) active recruitment in public schools
    2) scholarships and grants for needy students
    3) “tie-breaking” in vestibular scores with quantifiable social markers (most particularly class as we can look at people’s tax returns and parents’ jobs and education levels).
    4) and most particularly, sister school programs with private universities. Brazilian private schools are MUCH more black and brown at the university level than the public schools. I’d like to see a deal whereby each public school adopts, say, 6 private schools and does a closed vestibular for their students at the end of the sophmore year for a set of reserved vacancies in the public system. Students would have to prove a minimum GPA to get into the vestibular and would have to qualify for the federal government’s special scholarship for needy students in private schools grants.

    The problem with the quotas debate is that neither side is seriously thinking about what needs to be done to overcome inequality. There’s certainly a lot of racism on the antio-quotas side, sure. But there’s also a lot of political opportunism on the pro-quotas side coming out of the mouths of people who don’t know and frankly don’t care how the federal system works.

    Like


  502. With regard to:

    “J, in all your time here you have cited precisely ONE “afro-centered scholar” as your inspiration and that guy’s contribution to human knowledge was basically to apply a tired and discredited European theory on how culture moves about the planet to Africa.

    Would you like to tell me what other great Africanist scholars I’m belittling, please”

    I would like to add…

    What I find very interesting aboutthis comment is that reading it. Not even I am sure which scholar you are referring to here.

    You suggest this guy, who is presumably a male whose

    “contribution to human knowledge was basically to apply a tired and discredited European theory on how culture moves about the planet to Africa”

    By your own very words you show that you do not understand this man’s work, and my very point about
    NOT reading those works. the same very thing you did to others here. This notwithstanding I can only guess the scholar you are in fact intimating.

    Unless you can come with arguments, scientific theories etc to critique these African centred position and or even to look at the ‘facts’ honestly . Then I think I may have to close the discussion, since its clear ‘it’s more about scoring points’ rather than getting to the truths’ and facts.

    And this is what your role is here. People have castigated No_Slappz, to be honest I have a lot of difficulty understanding. Since I believe you are a lot worse and in fact more dangerous. Since you are that ‘White liberal’ that Malcolm X so poignantly described.

    To not do you a dis-service I have decided NOT to quote what he has to say about such ‘hypocrites’

    Like


  503. With regard to my own comments…

    “I think you are beliittling Black and African centred scholars, academics etc”.

    One of the strangest phenomena is that when Blacks/African attempt to explain the world, as White people have done. Then comes the claim it is not scientific, there are no races, they are distorting the historical facts. They are romaticising or have vain imaginations and the list goes on.

    I am going to start backwards first.

    When White Western historiography did/do the following:

    1. Create the concept of the ‘Dark White rac’e even before genetics science had been cultivated to the standards of today…and/or White Hamites

    2. Forged science as with the Piltdown man

    3. They created the concept of the Aryans being a race. As well as Semetic and Hamitic, even though these refer to languages

    4. They created the concept of the Middle East that exist so as to separate Northern Africa from Sub-Saharan Africa

    5. As for the Middle East, the question is ‘middle of what though and where’?? The concept makes absolutely no sense

    6. Created maps to mis-represent the size of the respective continents

    7. To this day have ‘appropriated’ Greek and Roman civilization, which has really nothing to do with West

    8. Have said that Egypt was a ‘White’ civilization but has reluctantly moved to a position now that it is an African civilization, just like any other. However, with the ability to say that because race did NOT exist we cannot say what they look like.

    I could go on but my point is this the same criticism which is levelled against an African centred approach to academia is never used against themselves.

    If anybody is ‘guilty’ of over-romanticism it is essentially ‘White people’.

    Now coming to the first point.

    If we look at these matters from a Philosophical approach. What you actually see is that ll areas of academia are not really objective and this is even so for the sciences. People will interpret and add on their own cultural analysis to ‘science’

    To put it simply, what African centred historians have done is what in essence any group of people would do, and have done if you go across the world. There is nothing odd about it.

    The oddness would be if African/Blacks did NOT attempt
    to do this

    So this is how deep the rabbit hole goes…

    Like


  504. Thanks B.R. for the analysis, and it does sound all too familiar

    Although cultures vary, I am NOT sure in essence people do. Especially when you talk about ‘justice’

    Like


  505. One of the strangest phenomena is that when Blacks/African attempt to explain the world, as White people have done. Then comes the claim it is not scientific, there are no races, they are distorting the historical facts. They are romaticising or have vain imaginations and the list goes on.

    I they are doing what white scholars did in XVIII and XIX century of course they will be criticized. Because the methodology those guys used was, according to today’s standards, flawed to say the least. Also, it was used to prove white supremacy. If afrocentric scholars use the same methodology to prove the same thing (only in favour of another race) it’s the same thing, and it’s still flawed. First of all, it’s not afrocentric (it’s still eurocentric) and second of all, it’s still flawed.

    I’m not saying afrocentric scholars do this, but if they do, the critique is well deserved, don’t you think? I mean, someone comes up today and say skull measurements prove white people to be more intelligent will be rightfully ridiculed and called racist. If someone does the same for black people, he or she should receive the same treatment. Because, as we all (hopefully) agree today, skull measurements are not markers of intelligence or superiority.

    The list you gave is a good list that shows some bad approaches in western science (some of them are, unfortunately, still used). What I didn’t understand here is why you think afrocentrics should do the same?

    Or am I completely missing the point here? Please, explain. (I must admit I skipped many comments/arguments over who’s gringo and who isn’t).

    Like


  506. To make myself more clear: if you believe something is bad, you should criticize it- whether it’s the enemy group doing it or your own group. What’s the point in fighting against something bad if the enemy group is doing it, but consider it to be ok if your group doing exact the same thing.

    Is that what your comment is about?

    Like


  507. No…not all

    Its for people or groups to form their own ‘history, culture and tradition’.

    Talk of ‘science, scientific truth, objectivity’ etc is nothing more than ‘romance’ in itself. Whether in creating their own history, culture and traditions etc, it leads to a ‘truth’ is irrespective…since tehre are really no truths.
    since all truth is ‘relative’. Anyhow and no two cultures are going to have the same outlook.

    So therefore groups should be allowed this very right ie to write their own history.

    What we have seen since 1500 onwards or so is that the White western nations have deprived ‘people of color’ from
    writing their own histories. Furthermore White western nations have not only written history as the world should be. They have also chosen to writte the histories for people of colour as well, which can only be in the ‘negative’ for obvious reasons

    ****Now this is time for people of colour to write their own history and also a the same to discuss the role of ‘White western civilization****.

    This is the essence of my point if you can understand the subtlety of the argument. its not about replacing ‘one bad’ thing for the other.

    The Euro centred and racist world-view in essence works ‘fine’ and it is so to many in that culture. I personally do not think it should change because my focus is one of attempting to be African centred.

    The problem is when ‘others’ (ie People of Color) begin to use comparison between themselves and the West, then it becomes problematic.

    I have heard you criticise the African centred paradigm without fully understanding its position and that what you are in essence defending the ‘Euro-centred’ position, inadvertently or otherwise. And hence teh question you also ask.

    Unfortunately, I do not think the Western euro-centred paradigm can continue to exist when you compare it to people of color paradigm, if you are seriosly interested in obtaing ‘equality’ between the races.

    And this is why I had said earlier say many Whites talk about ‘equality’ between the races but want to maintain those structures of inequality, without realising equality can only be reached by a complete ‘destruction’ of certain aspect of a Western euro-centred’ culture.

    I hope this clarifies

    Like


  508. J sais :” If we look at these matters from a Philosophical approach. What you actually see is that ll areas of academia are not really objective and this is even so for the sciences. People will interpret and add on their own cultural analysis to ’science’”

    I agree

    Glad you weighed in , Thad, I even agree with some things you said.

    But, I find it strange this notion that it would be so hard to figure out who is black and worthy and who is not.

    Would people try and abuse it? Of course , but, as I have stated, I can travel on the airlines on business and note that most of the people are definitly white.

    It would be ridiculas for me to state some kind of solution for the universities , not being on the ground to speak about it.

    My main point is that what ever it takes to get more black students into the universities is nescasary.What ever system of checks and balances it takes including things you mentioned , should be implimented.

    One big beef I have about racism in Brazil is the TV and media. It is disgusting and shameful how blacks of all shades are under represented.

    Talk about one of the main reasons a black child growing up in Brazil could have issues about self images in the society, the TV is a major offender.

    It might as well be Switzerland.

    Its funny to me that there could be so much confusion about who is black to get into universities but no confusion about what the color of the main TV celebrities is. The token sprinkling of black and mixed artists is painful when you know how black and mixed this country is.

    Or no confusion about what the beauty standards are for the modeling industry. In a TV show that goes into the “favelas” to find potential models, the tall more white featured ones would get favored every time. And I mean they would be passing on some absolutly devastatingly beautiful black girls.

    And three white female singers as the representatives of the top female singers from Salvador? I actualy like 2 of them but the third makes me want to retch….you cant tell me there arnt acres of talented black female singers and dancers in Salvador.

    So it just kind of doesnt sit right to me when people think it would be so hard to figure out who is black or white, to get a grant to get into a university, although granted , white people would be coming out of the woodwork to prove their great great grandmother was black.

    But some of your solutions by selectivly targeting economicly opressed areas are in line with tackling the problems.

    Some of that corruption billions of dollars certainly could go to setting up fair panels to judge…how much does a dna test cost?

    Like


  509. You are welcome B.R.

    Unfortunately, I think my patience is wearing thin and did not even read Thad’s comments on quota.

    This issue of quotas etc whether it be in Brazil or elsewhere is about re-addressing the inequalities in society…Some people just do not want to bridge the ‘equality gap’ and can find clever and some not-so clever to defend their position.

    These individuals either will be amongstthe oppressed giving advice what they should do to address the ‘inequalities’ but never fighting those who have the ‘real power’ to affect any change in the ordinary lives of people.

    On a different tact, we should not be surprised by this…

    Like


  510. @J

    Its for people or groups to form their own ‘history, culture and tradition’.

    For culture and tradition I agree, but for history? Do you know what “history” means? History is not “past”, history is discipline that helps understanding past based on written sources. Nothing more than that.

    Also, if you do take history as “past”, there can’t be different histories- only different views on what happened. Those different views should be encouraged and nobody should be prevented from taking his own view. Western European view is just one of the many. Let’s hear other views.

    Talk of ’science, scientific truth, objectivity’ etc is nothing more than ‘romance’ in itself.

    Of course. I don’t think objectivity is possible. Not even in natural sciences, let alone in humanities.

    Whether in creating their own history, culture and traditions etc, it leads to a ‘truth’ is irrespective…since tehre are really no truths. since all truth is ‘relative’. Anyhow and no two cultures are going to have the same outlook.

    I agree. Any group (or individual for that matter) should be free to express its own views and its own interpretation of history, society, politics, etc. Once again, western view is not THE right one or THE best one or THE one and only valid and important. Let’s hear others for a change.

    What we have seen since 1500 onwards or so is that the White western nations have deprived ‘people of color’ from writing their own histories. Furthermore White western nations have not only written history as the world should be. They have also chosen to writte the histories for people of colour as well, which can only be in the ‘negative’ for obvious reasons.

    Exactly. I agree with this.

    The Euro centred and racist world-view in essence works ‘fine’ and it is so to many in that culture. I personally do not think it should change because my focus is one of attempting to be African centred.

    Well, I don’t think it works fine, but that’s another subject.

    The problem is when ‘others’ (ie People of Color) begin to use comparison between themselves and the West, then it becomes problematic.

    You should fight against it.

    Frankly, the only problem I can see with your arguments is that you take whites to be all the same. Granted, you are free to do it (after all, that’s why western science did to non-white cultures), but in that case it’s “replacing ‘one bad’ thing for the other”- because you won’t be able to understand what’s going on.

    I have heard you criticise the African centred paradigm without fully understanding its position and that what you are in essence defending the ‘Euro-centred’ position, inadvertently or otherwise. And hence teh question you also ask.

    You didn’t understand my critic of afrocentrism. What I like about it it’s the fact it offers new views. What I don’t like about it it’s the fact it’s not really new, not different enough. It often turns out to be Eurocentric. I don’t need Eurocentric afrocentrism. Nobody does.

    I am no defending eurocentrism, I am sick of it. The main theme of my research is Ancient Greece and eurocentric view on it doesn’t even start to explain this culture. Main subject of my work is iron age Greece (its archaeology) and frankly, it has nothing to do with “west” or “Europe” for that matter. So as an archaeologist, I don’t use eurocentric view.

    Unfortunately, I do not think the Western euro-centred paradigm can continue to exist when you compare it to people of color paradigm, if you are seriosly interested in obtaing ‘equality’ between the races.

    Of course not. But I don’t deal with races in my work, which is about archaeology around 1200 BC.

    And this is why I had said earlier say many Whites talk about ‘equality’ between the races but want to maintain those structures of inequality, without realising equality can only be reached by a complete ‘destruction’ of certain aspect of a Western euro-centred’ culture.

    It’s not so much destruction but a deconstruction. At least from my side.

    I am not sure if I am one of those “many whites” (white liberals as you call them), but if you consider me as such, could you please tell me what makes you think I am? I already said: I am not a liberal. I don’t think what white liberals seem to think, that “whites should treat non-whites as equal”, I don’t think whites “have moral obligation to help others”. Because I don’t think whites are the default humans that are the most important on Earth and that they should start an action to help “others”. I don’t see non-whites as “others”. I don’t think whites are default humans nor that they are the most important people on Earth. I don’t think their opinion and their obligations are the most valid. I don’t think they should “help” those poor, unfortunate others. Of course helping someone in need is a good thing, but that’s not what I’m talking about. I don’t think whites are in any way superior, neutral or default. I hope you understand what I’m trying to say here.

    Like


  511. I agree with what your last post said, J

    Like


  512. To B.R….

    first, let me preface this by saying I have not yet finished reading a lot of the other posts yet, so I will be returning back to your post and continue reading down.

    I disagree with quotas. (you and I can agree to disagree.) I realize you’re not on here to make friends. You and i have disagreed on here a lot; however, that does not detract from the respect I have for you, your profession, musical knowledge and moreso – your family. So, when I say, “You’re the musica man.” That is my way of giving you a compliment. (that’s just me being me.) As for beers in Miami, just let me know. Not to many “Baianos” around here, so it would be nice. (still trying to find a place to get moqueca or acaraje.)

    As for Brazil, lets just say that “your personal” experience is probably much different than mine. (Just like it would be in the U.S. We are both American White males with mid-west roots, yet our “American” experience is mostly likely quite different from one another.) Back to Brazil, I understand the disparities and agree that the mult-millionaires in Brazil -even the upper middle class, are white. (not all though) This is about economics. The families that had, still have. My experience is with the middle class and lower middle class – which between Rio and Salvador is very racially diverse.

    My wife has never experienced racism in Brazil. (She will tell you that.) Granted, most of her life has been spent in Salvador where about 80% of the population (by appearance) is of African ancestry. The bulk of the remainder probably shares ancestry although not in appearance. Discrimination is largely economical. Her dad owns a successful business and is a “self-made” man. He worked hard to put her and her sisters into one of the best private schools in Salvador, so she actually grew up having peers in what i would call teh elite class of Salvador. (Her grandparents were poor fisherman from Valenca, Bahia. Her grandfather was blond and blue eyed. Jus saying lest you think only “Blacks” are poor in Brazil.) Don’t take this the wrong way, but I feel like you are applying the American Colourism game to Brazil. Its not a “one size fits all thing.” That just doesn’t work.

    Does racism exist in Brazil, absolutely – but not they way it does here in the U.S.

    Maybe we should take this over to a different thread? Colourism? Afro-Latino? I would love to talk with you more about this. (get some input from my wife.)

    Like


  513. To “J” and to “Thad”….

    Thank you for your comments and disagreements. If you guys didn’t disagree, I wouldn’t have all of these wonderful intellectual debates to feed my brain. Good exercise to process your ideas on some really good topics.

    Like


  514. As for “quotas” in Brazil – – This should be done for underpriviledged chilcren that grow up in extreme poverty in the Favelas. This should not be done by racial quotas. There are non-black children in the favelas too. This is an economic thing. Lets fix the root of the problem which is econmonical, not racial.

    Like


  515. Mira sez:
    If they are doing what white scholars did in XVIII and XIX century of course they will be criticized. Because the methodology those guys used was, according to today’s standards, flawed to say the least.

    THANK YOU Mira. My point exactly.

    Bad methodology labled “afrocentricism” does not good methodology make. You don’t take bad theories and make them good by flipping Victorian-age white theories on their head and painting them brown.

    In the face of a Victorian historiography which declared that all roads led out from Rome, Cheik Anta Dop’s “two civilizations” model was a breath of fresh air. Unfortunately for those who’d situate Dop at the bleeding edge of social scientific research, the social evolutionary and diffusionist paradigms which underpinned his theory (and which were themselves modernist European theories, by the way) were being dismanteled even as he was writing.

    This is why J’s attachment to Dop is actually pretty sad.

    Now, there happen to be a lot of African centered scholars out there whom I respect. While I don’t agree with Martin Bernal about everything, I think he most certainly put a stake through the heart of the concept of a white Egypt and that was a very good thing indeed.

    I also think that some of the work of critical race theorists like Bell and Crenshaw (who came out of the early and somewhat naive afrocentrism J holds to) is spot on. Their dismantling of liberalism’s supposed color-blindedness needs to be incorporated into any neo-illuminist project. And intersectionality is probably the greatest theoretical breakthrough in our generation in the social sciences. I disagree, however, with Bell’s anti-rationalist presumptions and with the idea that mythmaking and history are essentially one and the same thing. I do not think that humanity can long survive in a world in which “history” becomes a license to make up any old story one wants.

    And I wonder about J.’s silence regarding the thousands of African scholars out there. It seems to me that J is far too willing to dismiss the work of anyone he dislikes with a wave of his hand as “too eurocentric”. It also seems to me that this is incredibly arrogant when it’s a Brit (who apparently has never set foot in Africa except, perhaps, as a tourist) doing this to Africans.

    What it boils down to in the end is not “European” versus “African” but science versus science fiction. And no, I do not buy the strawman that “science is a western myth”. For all its flaws (which are many) science has given us the goods. This is why we are able to have this conversation, in fact. A man who believes that science is simply some cultural manifestation of white supremacy and who uses the internet and computers to promote this view is seriously deluded, at the very least.

    J’s supposed “afrocentrism” is nothing more than a IRL version of trolling. Its arguments are not underpinned by proof or rationality but by tautological ad hominem attacks (I’m allowed to discard a theory without engaging it if it is eurocentric and if I discard a theory without engaging with it it is eurocentric). It does not postulate a real Africa, which we should learn about, but a phantasmagoric Africa, which can be changed moment to moment as politics demands by “counterstorytelling” and “proactive mythmaking”. (One wonders what happens to the billion or so REAL Africans in all of this “textual redeployment”).

    What’s sad about all this is that these scholars’ undeniable mental powers basically end up doing donuts on the lawn. Like internet trolls, they have nothing positive to say, only memes to repeat. If they were actually to come into power through some sort of miracle, they wouldn’t have the slightest notion what to do with it. Derick Bell’s career is something of a casebook example of this. Because of his theatrics, what was originally a very well thought out attack on liberal presumptions of equality has turned into a dog-and-pony show which has ended up not affecting the greater American legal scene in the slightest.

    Bell, of course, would say that this is because eurocentrists are not willing to acknowledge his theories’ correctness, nicely glossing over the fact that he never presents any falsifiable theories in the first place and, consequently, there is no way to judge them correct or incorrect. He has thus become a minor side show of American jurisprudence.

    One wonders what the U.S. would look like now if someone like, say, Hugo Black or Thurgood Marshall had taken this approach to history and law. Well, OK, civil rights would have been infinitely weaker, maybe not even extant, but hey, all that’s no nevermind because at least they wouldn’t have sold out to “eurocentric theories” like rationalism, due process and equality, right?

    Like


  516. Would people try and abuse it? Of course , but, as I have stated, I can travel on the airlines on business and note that most of the people are definitly white.

    You do realize that the processes of getting on an airplane and getting into (and staying in) a federal university are somewhat different, right? What your airplane comment shows us is that Brazil is racist. Well, no duh. Whether or not quotas can ameliorate that problem in the federal schools is the question and the airplane experience tells us nothing about that.

    Its funny to me that there could be so much confusion about who is black to get into universities but no confusion about what the color of the main TV celebrities is.

    There actually is a lot more racial flexibility on T.V. than you would think. Several people who you would probably classify as “white” have now declared themselves to be “black”. Check out Miriam Leitão, for example.

    This is Miriam: http://jornale.com.br/mirian/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/mirian-leitao.jpg

    She is a self-declared afrodecendent (and it’s true: she was born to a very poor family and one of her parents is black). She is a T.V. journalist, is married to a white political scientist and university professor and they live in a very nice apartment in Rio’s South Zone. Miriam wholeheartedly supports quotas for her children as a way of addressing historical injustices which her family suffered. I’m guessing that the combined income of her and her husbandf currently tops 200,000 reais a year.

    Neat, huh?

    Ana did her master’s thesis on affirmative action in the Brazilian media. The main protaganist of her study was chosen to be the spokesboy for Rio’s civic projects in the media due to a quotas-based affirmative action law: he was chosen precisely because he declared himself to be black, but he was racially ambiguous enough to slot in pretty much anywhere the city.

    Dress him up in shorts and sandles and put him in front of a favela and he was “black”; put him in nice clothes out against a backdrop of Barra da Tijuca and he “passed” for white or near enough as to be no nevermind. Ana’s conclusion? The BEST place to be in carioca racial morphologies is dark/light enough to pass ANYWHERE.

    And it’s funny that you complain about “lack of black presence in the media”, seeing as how Brazil already HAS a quota law for T.V. ads and it’s been in place since 1995 – that’s fifteen years, B.R. So if we’ve had quotas in the media for 15 years and you aren’t noticing any differences, then that should tell you something about the efficacy of quotas in a country like this.

    What’s happened in the case of the ads law is that we’re seeing many more light brown people in the media, which is fine. What we are NOT seeing is an adequate portrayal of Brazil as it is.

    You’ve been hjere long enough to know by now, B.R., that Brazil has no problem with seeing itself as a mestiço nation. Due to classic racis, we’ve spent the last 400 years pretending that brown was really white. Quotas will move us along to where we pretend that brown is really black.

    It all rather reminds me of that old racist joke about the Birmingham Alabama bus driver who, at the height of the civil rights struggle in his city, declared everyone in his bus to be green. Then, when the passengers agreed that this was fair, he says “OK, light green to the front, dark green to the rear”.

    Quotas is a shuck to get us to AVOID dealing with substantive affirmative action. And it’s doing a maravelous job of that, as far as I can see.

    Like


  517. to “J”… I’m going back to an earlier period in this thread where you responded to a comment I made about why many African Americans have Irish last names.

    You provided a link to a really cool article: https://abagond.wordpress.com/2010/03/10/toure-on-sexually-heroic-slave-women/#comment-43471

    Thank You, – it was a good read. I didn’t see any numbers or stats as to how many slave owners had Irish surnames. This is something I would be most interested in finding.

    I think it is still safe to say that the majority of Irish surnames in the African American community is due to the proximity of the two groups, shared discrimination and CONSENTING relationships.

    ——-
    Victor Mooney is one of the founders of the Irish African-American Society of North America. Though the society remains small, Mooney is an enthusiastic advocate for greater celebration of the links between the two ethnicities.

    Like


  518. “J” — would you agree that more consensual relationships occurred between the Irish and Blacks than non-consensual? Keep in mind the close proximity, etc…

    To sum up American sentiment regarding the Irish:

    The CHICAGO POST wrote: “The Irish fill our prisons, our poor houses…Scratch a convict or a pauper, and the chances are that you tickle the skin of an Irish Catholic. Putting them on a boat and sending them home would end crime in this country.”

    Another story I found (yes – good ole Wiki)

    John England, a native of Ireland in 1820 became the first Catholic bishop in the chiefly Protestant city of Charleston, South Carolina. During the 1820s-1830s, he defended the Catholic minority against nativist prejudices. In 1831 and 1835, the bishop established free schools for black girls and boys. In 1835, riled by the propaganda of the American Anti-Slavery Society, a mob raided the Charleston post office and the next day turned its attention to England’s school for ‘children of color.’ Alerted, John England led Charleston’s Irish Volunteers to protect the school. Yet soon after this, when all schools for ‘free blacks’ were closed in Charleston, England acquiesced, thus divorcing Catholicism in Charleston from abolitionism.

    Like


  519. Mira

    Since I am in a rush here briefly goes

    1. For culture and tradition I agree, but for history? Do you know what “history” means? History is not “past”, history is discipline that helps understanding past based on written sources. Nothing more than that

    A. No this is not true maybe for teh part of teh world where you live in.

    For

    Like


  520. Ha ha ah I am in so much in a rush I posted and threw myself out…

    Again

    1. Mira

    Since I am in a rush here briefly goes

    1. For culture and tradition I agree, but for history? Do you know what “history” means? History is not “past”, history is discipline that helps understanding past based on written sources. Nothing more than that

    A. No this is not true maybe for the part of the world where you live in.

    African culture has a different concept of time and even history. Those who are ‘dead’ the ‘ancestors’ are living and the ‘unborm’ who have not reached this plane yet are also alive. So history is not just about the past but it is in the euro-centred way of looking at things with time being linear.

    The more that is explained the more you go into the opposite direction of not listening. You somehow have to ‘spiritually’ let go to understand the process at work

    2. Frankly, the only problem I can see with your arguments is that you take whites to be all the same.

    In a system of Global White supremacy that cannot be ruled out. You have a problem seeing letting alone acknowleding teh problem. And personallyI do not see many Whites trying to destroy’ this system. What I find interesting you say you come from a society where
    there are little or no Black people. However, the way you think at times is very similar to any euro-centred White who has spent a lifetime amongst Blacks.

    3. I agree. Any group (or individual for that matter) should be free to express its own views and its own interpretation of history, society, politics, etc. Once again, western view is not THE right one or THE best one or THE one and only valid and important. Let’s hear others for a change

    Personally I would say no, attempting to root myself in African centredness is not an attempt to make any converts. If the Western world wants to keep their present histiography. Then it is for African/Blacks to do for themselves and find their own history. This is no market place

    4. You didn’t understand my critic of afrocentrism

    This may well be true but I bet you cannot recite many African centred theories back and forth. Already in a dialogue on a different topic you suggested that Afrocentric scholars thought Greece civilization was a Black civilization. this is a gross exaggeration. the problems with most who critique Afrocentric scholars. They have not read them that includes Leftkowitz, Thad and you. Admittedly I will concede that Stephen Howe has done alittle research more than some but he is still problematic for his lack of knowledge.

    5. It’s not so much ‘destruction’ but a ‘deconstruction’. At least from my side.

    Well if it is a case of de-construction then in ‘revolutonary’ terms I do not think that is good enough to change the current system of inequalities

    Well as I said I was in a rush so I hope I clarified some of the points

    Like


  521. With regard to Thad quoting Mira

    “If they are doing what white scholars did in XVIII and XIX century of course they will be criticized. Because the methodology those guys used was, according to today’s standards, flawed to say the least”.

    THANK YOU Mira. My point exactly (Thad)

    However, are they??

    Then you have White historians like Bernal and Ehert who reveal many things about Africa and they are NOT Afrocentricist.

    Let’s have a look at some of the things that African centred thinking has corrected

    1. There is a Black presence in Egypt, through Nubia and through Egypt themselves

    2. African centred scholars from a long time has been suggesting that the original home of humankind is in Africa long before this mitochondrical DNA

    3. African centred scholars helped to reveal that there was an African presence in teh Roman armythat went to Britain under Septimus Sevirus.

    4. It has revealed at least 3 ancient Black popes

    5. African centred history has revealed taht all teh major Greek philosophers bytheir own admission went to study in Egypt

    6. African centred thinking revealed the connection between Pharaonic language and African language used today.

    and the list goes on – but I do not have the time to go on though.

    So I do not know what you and Mira mean that they are teh same thing they are not.

    And this is another example where you try to equate the ‘evils’ of the ‘White western world with Blacks as being the same – see above

    I am sorry Thad, thet piece about Diop looks like a cut n paste job. Unlike you I am not against cutting n pasting, but only when you know your subject matter.

    Like


  522. You welcome ColorofLuv

    With regard to:

    ‘Would you agree that more consensual relationships occurred between the Irish and Blacks than non-consensual? Keep in mind the close proximity, etc…’

    UnfortunatelyI do not know anything about the history of the ‘Irish and Blacks in the U.S’.

    Maybe somebody else may want to answer that question, I hope so

    Like


  523. And with regard to

    J’s supposed “afrocentrism” is nothing more than a IRL version of trolling

    We have two things at work here Thad we have African/Western historiography and we also have the issue of politics.

    You really only have a history of Western historiography. this is why you ridiculed B.R. suggestion that Samba has no connection with South Africa. However, your failure to know African history could not have alerted you that the Africans had existed in Southern Africa previously.

    So much of our debates are not about historical facts.

    Its the politics we essentially disagree on. I see you as the paternalistic White man who does not have Black/African peoples’ interest at heart, though you claim you do.

    This is where much off our difference lies – and you know it put through a process of ‘intellectual dishonesty’ you try to paint a different picture

    Like


  524. @J

    No this is not true maybe for the part of the world where you live in.

    I was talking about academic definition of history as a discipline. You must decide whether you’re talking from academic (afrocentric or not) point of view, or “general” point of view. In general meaning of the word (“for ordinary people”), “history” is a culturally specific term. In academic meaning of the word, history is what I wrote above. Nothing more or less. I was talking from an academic point of view, since we’re talking about eurocntrism and afrocentrism, not my own or your own view of the world or your culture and my culture. If you want to know what history means to me or my culture, that’s another thing. For example, ancestors are very important for Serbian culture. Church calender is different than the western. Etc. I wasn’t talking about that.

    African culture has a different concept of time and even history. Those who are ‘dead’ the ‘ancestors’ are living and the ‘unborm’ who have not reached this plane yet are also alive. So history is not just about the past but it is in the euro-centred way of looking at things with time being linear.

    Of course, history from African point of view is different than the European one. To view African cultures from European POV is wrong. It’s not just ethically wrong, but is also logically wrong, because it’s impossible to understand African cultures using European frame of mind. If that’s what you call afrocentric, of course I support it.

    The more that is explained the more you go into the opposite direction of not listening.

    Me? Or general “you”? I never saw any of your psots explaining African view of time and history.

    You somehow have to ’spiritually’ let go to understand the process at work

    Could you please explain this?

    In a system of Global White supremacy that cannot be ruled out.

    Are you aware of the fact many white cultures were never colonists? Never? Some were colonized (victims), some are not even recognized as white in the west (especially in America). To say Arabs, Norwegians, Indians, Italians, Turks, Serbs and Lithuanians are “all the same” doesn’t make much sense. Not even in the “white supremacy” sense of the word, since some of those are not even recognized as white in many parts of the world, some are small nations, some were colonized, and others colonized other whites. White supremacy is something that was born in a specific historical time (mainly, western colonialism and imperialism) and not something that is genetically coded into you if you are born Caucasian.

    You have a problem seeing letting alone acknowleding teh problem.

    ??? When did I deny white supremacy problem? Or colonialism? Imperialism? Slavery?

    What I find interesting you say you come from a society where
    there are little or no Black people.

    There are so little black people that you could say there are no black people at all.

    However, the way you think at times is very similar to any euro-centred White who has spent a lifetime amongst Blacks.

    Quotes, please. Point me where I wrote something that made you think this way. Please.

    Personally I would say no, attempting to root myself in African centredness is not an attempt to make any converts. If the Western world wants to keep their present histiography. Then it is for African/Blacks to do for themselves and find their own history. This is no market place

    So, you believe any culture should stick to itself and never let anyone else explore it? In a way, since I’m not African, I am not allowed to review what I know about history from African POV? I should stick to western science? But the trick is, I’m not a westerner. West is enemy of my culture.

    This may well be true but I bet you cannot recite many African centred theories back and forth.

    I didn’t read them all. I never said I did. i only said what I disliked about some of the approaches, just like I said what I liked about the others. If you are an afrocentric you’d know there are many different aspects of the afrocentric approach.

    Already in a dialogue on a different topic you suggested that Afrocentric scholars thought Greece civilization was a Black civilization. this is a gross exaggeration.

    True, that’s a gross exaggeration. I don’t remember I said that, but I think I mentioned something about Martin Bernal. On the other hand, I am the one who disagrees with Greece being an European civilization (other than geographically), and I am fighting against the portrayal of Greece as cradle of western civilization. So I guess I said something about Bernal in the same discussion. What I think we should not use “white” and “black” for the past, rather European/African.

    Well if it is a case of de-construction then in ‘revolutonary’ terms I do not think that is good enough to change the current system of inequalities

    Do you know what is deconstruction?

    Like


  525. @J

    However, are they??

    I don’t know. IF they are, THEN it is wrong and pointless thing to do. Replacing one bad with another. However, none of the things on your list falls into that category.

    What is interesting about these points, is that they are part of the regular academic programs in my university. They are not considered to be controversial in any way, they are a norm (especially #2).

    Like


  526. Colorofluv, no problem, thanks for sharing the background on your wife.

    Thad, I just dont know how you can cite a few exceptions as though that changes anything about the media and TV, which is essentialy white life. Brazil will always have exceptions in these situations, but the truth is , its overwelmingly white.

    The university situation about racial makeup is only one aspect of racial issues in Brazil, it is just one side of the story. What struck me the most about the quota debate, was some of the arguments by the white side. They are almost painful to hear.

    Just because it failed in comercials doesnt mean it cant work, the people who implimented it are not following through.

    I think the nature of the color of people on an airplane has as much relavance to the racial situation , and what it means , as other situations such as do the color of prisons. Ive been seeing a lot of reports on prisons in Brazil lately and most of the prisoners are brown to black and they stack them all up like it was the middle passage. For sure there are some really bad people in prison, but, the treatment is frightening.Along with the media , they all point to an exasperating situation that is in desperate need of urgent changes…or just fester into a deeper and deeper hole of no return and an underworld of chaos.

    As far as “quotas” in the universities, anything can be abused, afirmitive action and welfere were abused in the USA, that is no reason to abandon it, its only a reason to find out how to correct the problems.

    As far as quotas, if people put in the correct effort, and , try to make it fair, it can aceive its purpose. If they want to be sloppy about it , of course its going to backfire.

    My opinion why I support quotas right now , is that the disparity between black and white is so great that if something can make even a temperary stab at these obvious issues , its a start that can be abandoned or tweaked as it goes along. Whether it works depends on the people who impliment it. Sure there is a chance for failure, but, a lot of other stuff has failed in Brazil also. Why the hangup of at least trying? What is so bad about trying them ? For sure some will abuse , but, others who need it will get help.

    Black poor Brazilians deserve a huge break, right now. They probably wont get it, but, the Brazilian society is splitting apart at the seams. It is unbeleivably urgent and serious. Any hemming and hawing only will make the situation steadily get worse.

    The after affects of black slavery are as evident in Brazil than just about any place else. They abandoned slavery in the late 1880’s,yet years after, slaves were brought in , they even called Porto de Galinhas that to hide the fact that they were bringing illeagle slaves there and they said those “galinhas” were coming in.

    Brazil has to face its slave past and not sluff it off as a social and class problem. Its a racial problem that needs to be confronted because racism exists on a very powerful leval there.

    Im for quotas, your arguments dont convince me, Id rather see it implimented and if it doesnt work its just one more thing that can be corrupted in Brazil. But there just might be a chance that if it was done right, it could make a differance.

    Id sure like to find out instead of argue about it. What ever is happening now sure isnt working.

    Like


  527. Let’s have a look at some of the things that African centred thinking has corrected…

    No doubt. And, as I’ve said several times above while you were obviously not reading, afrocentrism definitely has its value in correcting certain hoary eurocentric stereotypes.

    So I do not know what you and Mira mean that they are teh same thing they are not.

    The problem is when “afrocentric” is used – as you frequently use it – as a qualifier for all that is good and correct. Diop’s theories, for example, are underpinned by a social evolutionist and difusionist paradigm. Twist and turn, hem and haw all you like regarding this point, J: it’s true. It’s discredited science, whether the “center” of sivilization is located in Africa or Europe or both: human civilization didn’t simply evolve in a strict linear fashion, passing from people to people.

    You really only have a history of Western historiography.

    Sorry, J. I’d be willing to lay dollars to donuts that I’ve read more African history by African writers than you have.

    this is why you ridiculed B.R. suggestion that Samba has no connection with South Africa. However, your failure to know African history could not have alerted you that the Africans had existed in Southern Africa previously.

    And this is precisely what I mean. The African cultures that existed in South Africa did not supply any of the roots of samba. These came from the cultures that lived in Angola and Nigeria. Only by glossing the difference between African cultures to a ridiculous extreme (say, the same sort of view which, if applied to Europe, would say that Iberian music was essentially the same as Scandanavian music) could you situate the roots of samba in South Africa.

    That’s not being respectful of Africa or afrocentric, J: that’s saying, essentially, “Well, all them Africans are pretty much the same.” And they most certainly aren’t – just like all European or all Asian or all American cultures are not “pretty much the same”. The few cultural similarities do not negate the immense differences.

    I see you as the paternalistic White man who does not have Black/African peoples’ interest at heart, though you claim you do.

    I see you as a frustrated demogogue who enjoys mouthing platitudes about a continent and set of peoples who you know next to nothing about.

    And that’s sad, J. If I were afrocentric, my first order of business would be learning about Africa. You, on the other hand, seem to think that this would get in the way of your construction of an idealized fantasy Africa.

    So please don’t lecture me about “intellectual dishonesty” when the last thing you are is an intellectual.

    Like


  528. Y’know, this is interesting: a black Brit lecturing a white Slav on how her people were never oppressed or enslaved…

    …when any fool knows that “Slav” is the root word for “slave” in the English language.

    Like


  529. B.R. sez:
    Thad, I just dont know how you can cite a few exceptions as though that changes anything about the media and TV, which is essentialy white life. Brazil will always have exceptions in these situations, but the truth is , its overwelmingly white.

    B.R. it’s not a “few situations”. You think quotas will make Brazil more representative. Well, we’re 15 years into quotas for T.V. and T.V. continues to be your maximum example of Brazilian white dominance, correct?

    So if quotas are supposed to solve this, why have they done such a poor job of it on T.V.?

    Just because it failed in comercials doesnt mean it cant work, the people who implimented it are not following through.

    You missed the point: they ARE following it through. They are STRICTLY obeying quotas. The criteria for these quotas is the same proposed for school quotas: self-ascription of race. In other words, you are what you say you are. Thus, light-brown Brazilian actors who were once considered “almost white” now define themselves as “afro-Brazilian” and quotas are maintained. If you really LOOK at T.V. from the early ’80s to today, you will see it HAS changed: it’s gotten more light brown and less white. So that’s an advance, I guess.

    What T.V. HASN’T got is black. I still doesn’t even come close to representing Brazil as it is and now is never likely to, because we’ve solved the problem with quotas, right?

    Here’s a scene from “Quanto Vale ou é oir kilo?” which is a film everyone interested in social justice in Brazil should see. This is part four, on Youtube. The scene I would like people to watch begins at the five minute mark and ends at 8:40. It has English subtitles so it should be no trouble for anyone to follow (Mira and J I’d particularly like to hear what you think of this). Anyhow, here’s the effect of “quotas in media”:

    So here we have a hyperbolic example of a scene that’s becoming more common in today’s Brazil. Note that the director is the darkest guy on his crew and could probably, if he chose, declare himself afrodescendente. The “black” woman he’s arguing with is only slightly darker.

    So how DO we classify those kids, B.R. and how is such a heavy-handed classification going to suddenly result in more equality?

    I mean, I appreciate your rhetoric and applaud it and all.But, as an educator who’s actually at ground zero on this issue, I have to figure out how we’re going to transform those nice words into really effective policy.

    I don’t see quotas doing that. I DO see a U.S.-style AA program as having a chance at doing that.

    Like


  530. Thad, J pointed out that people from the congo migrated south and became the Zulus

    nobody is saying the Zulus invented samba, I said I saw rare footage of a step that I have never seen Zulus do before and it looked amazingly like the samba step of Rio and they also had a step in this footage that looked like a samba step from Salvador.

    I cant find the footage on youtube

    And anybody, musician, dancer or scholor is going to have to deal with that the same way I had to. I never thought Zulus did a samba type step, but the eyes dont lie.

    You just have to defer to my expertise that I know a samba step when I see it. I guaretee you that Hermano would relate to it and understand exactly what I am saying.

    Nobody is saying all African rhythms are the same, here you go again going off on tagents that dont relate.

    Do you really want to start this argument that you lost all over again? You are not an expert on African rhtyms and dances.The youtuves proved you seriously wrong

    Also, you said comercial had the quotas, not Tv , absolutly huge differnce

    and no one enforced it correctly

    I say get the quotas on , if they dont work go on to something else.This arguing about it wont do anything.

    there is so much corruption in Brazil, that maybe it wont work…what if it helps even several thousand black Brazilians get a chance?

    I dont really understand your stiffness and poo pooing it.

    Everything you reccomended could be corrupted also

    Like


  531. Thad, you are at ground zero and I dont think I know what is the deal at the Universities with the same oversight you have

    I do say, anything you reccomended could be corrupted also

    i only saw 4 minutes and i have to go, but, there are more black Brazilians in this youtube than most any normal Tv in Brazil I have seen

    Ill check the rest out and comment later

    Like


  532. Thad, J pointed out that people from the congo migrated south and became the Zulus.

    I don’t know why J just doesn’t say that they were from Sirius or whatever and that the Mothership dropped them off.

    It’s pretty well known that the Zulus – along with the Bantu peoples in general – migrated down the EAST coast of Africa. The last time they were in the Congo was 500 BC. They weren’t even ethnically bantus, then, let alone Zulus. The same way that the Sea Peoples who invade Egypt around 1200 BC aren’t ethnically today’s Greeks.

    The Bantu language family seems to have originated in what is today northern Nigeria around 3500 BC. One group split off down the west coast and gave rise to the peoples who eventually gave us part of the roots of samba. The group headed into the African lakes region and this eventually gave the world the Zulus.

    Now, before you start yipping about “I KNEW there was a cultural connection”, a similar trajectory of migration, mapped onto Europe, would have to essentially understand everything west of the Urals as “French” because that people, of course, are partly descended from the Celts who were, in turn, partly descended from the Indo-Europeans who lived out on the Caucasian steppe at about the time the proto-Bantus were in Nigeria.

    Now, you wouldn’t say everything from Flamenco to Russian Cossack dancing was essentially the same thing, derived from the same cultural matrix, would you? No. So why not give Africans the same degree of consideration?

    I never thought Zulus did a samba type step, but the eyes dont lie.

    Nice dodge, B.R.: “I never said they were doing it, but I saw them doing it!”

    The problem with that is the difusionist illusion. Cultures frequently re-invent stuff. Just because something looks like something somewhere else doesn’t mean it necessarily came from there, B.R. Old eurocentric anthropology used to have huge debates about how this group HAD to be descended from some other group on the other side of the planet or continent or ocean or whatever because the two had a certain cultural trait in common. These sort of theories have since been proven embarassingly wrong, more often than not.

    5000 years is a long time for dance crazes, B.R. Dance forms rarely last more than a century or two.

    there is so much corruption in Brazil, that maybe it wont work…what if it helps even several thousand black Brazilians get a chance?

    Because it may end up spending a huge amount of resources and not even do that. YOUR kid may not have a decent federal university to go to, B.R., because we’ll dismantle what we got today in the name of social justice without replacing it with anything better. Those are the stakes.

    Here’s what I think, B.R.: we have a very successful AA model in the U.S. Instead of just saying “what the hell” and tossing the dice because “anything is better than nothing”, why don’t we learn from what the Yanks did and adopt it to our circumstances?

    The “hell, I dunno, it might not work but why not try it” argument is naive in the extreme because it presumes that there ARE no other or better options. That is simply wrong.

    Also, you said comercial had the quotas, not Tv , absolutly huge differnce and no one enforced it correctly

    First of all, B.R., do you REALLY think that T.V. commercials show the “true face of Brazil”? </