- CNulan, Michael Fisher & UndercoverBlackMan
- 3 remarkably brilliant, complex and talented brothers with far more in common than that which sets them apart. Why the virulent relentless and vindictive expressions of personal animus far outside the boundaries of what one would expect on a blog? Accused of "instigating" this verbal battle royale for some type of personal amusement, I've got to state just the opposite. What has transpired over the past week has caused me some cognitive dissonance. I'm far more fond of these men than I am comfortable admitting
(you know of 3 better informed, interesting and funny muhfuggas than these cats, post a link), and witnessing the depths of their attacks was like watching family members gauge each others eyes out. Not to mention the unpalatable thought of Byrdeye gleefully giving High-Fives and arguing that this is proof-positive of his R-gaming theory that blacks don't build but destroy.
(you know of 3 better informed, interesting and funny muhfuggas than these cats, post a link), and witnessing the depths of their attacks was like watching family members gauge each others eyes out. Not to mention the unpalatable thought of Byrdeye gleefully giving High-Fives and arguing that this is proof-positive of his R-gaming theory that blacks don't build but destroy.I know for a fact, these cats dig each other. I say we all meet in Vegas or Miami or NYC, have a drink and do something productive with this immense collection of intellectual horsepower.
66 comments:
DV, you asked..."microcosm of the Balkanization within the larger black community that has stifled the development of black people for years?"
No. Just as there is Balkanization in the white community as well as the Black community, yet this has not stifled their hegemony and developement of whites. Then, therefore, then our lack of full development, as a community, is rooted in other areas and matters that are well known.
.."Or is this just some shit between these cats that has nothing to do with black people as a whole?.."
Yes. That simple. Nothing more;Nothing less. People do and can disagree among themselves. And, as such, it has nothing to do with the community at large.
DV, you clever goose... instigatin' under the guise of peacemaking now?
Michael Fisher made himself known to me 17 months ago... with this comment posted at BlackProf.com:
David Mills is a low life. F-Word that N-Word. And I sincerely mean it. ...
He is a piece of s-word who tries to get ahead by snitching to white supremacists on black progressives and black nationalists. Thus the moniker “undercover black man”.
His attack on PE enabled low lifes such as Jerry Heller to finally convince the Jewish folks who run the music industry to inaugurate THE radical change in their signing and marketing strategy...
Mills is single-handedly responsible for the demise of conscious black Hip Hop and the rise of the likes of NWA and 50 cent as well as the resulting and accompanying black murder rate among black youth and the concomitant rise of disrespectful lyrics and behavior towards black women.
He was the black snitch they used to set the whole sh*t up.
Hypocrite
Within two months, Fisher emailed me his phone number so that we could be friends.
By April '08, he approached me to collaborate with him on a TV or movie idea of his.
Dude's a joke.
As for Craig Nulan, his online sociopathy speaks for itself. His zeal for the ugliest kinds of personal attacks finally moved me to action.
My taking a few hours to clown those two at Denmark Vesey's isn't grounds for a Camp David summit.
Or is this just some shit between these cats that has nothing to do with black people as a whole?
Why is it that, when three random black dudes are arguing, some people begin to raise the question as to whether or not their antics are part of a "larger issue" affecting black people as a whole?
When South Korean lawmakers are going apeshit over a free trade agreement, do we say that it's a "microcosm" of behavior which is part of a "larger phenomenon" which affects South Korean people as a whole?
Why is it that when the Tutsis and Hutus are at war, some people try to call it "African tribalism", but when Germany, France, England etc go to war with each other, it's just "war"?
When you stop and think about it, the question of whether Nulan, Fisher, and Mills' aggressiveness towards each other has anything to do with black people as a whole becomes really silly when you apply the same standard to other cases.
If Mills's, Nulan's, and Fisher's antics cause us to ask if it's possibly "a larger problem" with black folks, then what do the images of white people bearing everything from shit-eating grins to emotionless blank expressions at the scenes of lynchings cause us to ask about white people?
"Not to mention the unpalatable thought of Byrdeye gleefully giving High-Fives and arguing that this is proof-positive of his R-gaming theory that blacks don't build but destroy."
Please spare me this A-B-C-D-E-F-Gaming bullshit about "blacks" being these wanton destroyers. Human beings are aggressive animals, period. What does the R-gaming "theory" have to say about the large pantheon of European torture devices that were designed, developed, and implemented over the years?
Does the invention of the thumbscrew for instance, cause us to begin a commentary on white people as a whole, or do we limit our observations to the individual who came up with the design?
Here's a hint: I don't see European torture devices as a reflection of white people. When I think of machines designed to mame the human body, I think of the individuals who would take the time out to design such things. Some guy actually sat around and said, "Hey, we need a better way to crush thumbs." So if Nulaan, Fisher, and Mills want to sit around and torture each other with words, then who cares?
" Mills is single-handedly responsible for the demise of conscious black Hip Hop and the rise of the likes of NWA and 50 cent as well as the resulting and accompanying black murder rate among black youth and the concomitant rise of disrespectful lyrics and behavior towards black women."
Man UBM,, he's giving you a lot of credit and power. Obviously, things are not that simple. Perhaps the timing of your work, and the "ultimate pimping" of your work, then, by them, gave them, the executives, the green light to make their move against, and for those mentioned in your post. For you, probably, really did not have the power to contest them in any event. I was always curious about the transition from concious rap to the gansta BS.
ANYHOO, I do like your TV credits. And if ya'll do come the NYC look a brotha up! I'm in Harlem.
ANYHOO, I do like your TV credits.
Thanks, GDAWG.
03 09 09
DV:
I appreciate you putting out this olive branch. It is one thing to stimulate debate on a blog but quite another to see a thread degenerate into nastiness.
I hope Fish,UBM and Nulan work it out. But one thing they seem to have in common is stubborness and strong wills. Therefore, I don't see reconcilation occuring as a mutual thing.
What if it's all just a ruse to hide the fundamental fact that a large swath of blacks Americans, including Nulan, Fisher and Mills, believe in EXACTLY the same underlying paradigm?
These guys might be hatin' on each other, but their fundamental belief in the known paradigm is as cognitively concerted as one could expect.
Their hatin' does nothing but attempt to mask a parallel belief system.
Makes you think that Mills scripted this some time ago???
3 remarkably brilliant, complex and talented brothers with far more in common than that which sets them apart.
I disagree. These gentlemen have far more fundamental differences than things in common.
What would be the basis for reconciliation? They are 3 individuals who are not dependent on each other in any way. They don’t represent organizations that are competing for space in black folks minds or for physical territory.
If they are making any valid points while disagreeing-which is kool- I stop reading the post as soon as personal insults start flying. I have no interest in national enquirerism.
The best we could hope for is that they would cease and desist with the character assassinations. Or they could simply choose to ignore one another.
If not, I’m sure they will continue to find space for the trash talking at DV’s National Enquirer.
^ Oh shnapple! Somebody's got good sense...
Mills...
"Within two months, Fisher emailed me his phone number so that we could be friends."
Friends? Actually no. More friendly? Yeah, why not. I also told you at the time that I would continue to take your "blacks-are-genetically-mentally-inferior" theory on. At the time I had no idea how truly deep your own disgust for black folks is.
"By April '08, he approached me to collaborate with him on a TV or movie idea of his."
Yep. Like I said, I separate talent from personality. Gotta do so in the entertainment business.
I disagree. These gentlemen have far more fundamental differences than things in common.
I disagree. No matter how individualy "different" they are, they're all still black. Therefore they all invariably still voted for Obama. Because he's black. Like them. Race > individuality and the race card trumps all at the end of the day.
Or does anyone know a single nigga, conservative or liberal, dark or light, who didn't vote for Obama?
Mills...
"I hope Fish,UBM and Nulan work it out."
Mahndisa. The underlying issues are not about our personalities. The underlying issues are about fundamental questions.
Any person who keeps insisting in light of thorough and months' long analysis and discussion that any arbitrarily selected category of people are "inferior" and thus to blame for their own social, political, economic, and health status, is dishonest and practices racism.
While Nulan is an unpleasant fellow, he does not excuse and uphold injustice. Mills does.
Mills' attack on Nulan's employment status (and my presumed unemployment) fits right into this. To try to denigrate a person because of their lack of employment of their underemployment (so judged to be by the accuser) is a typical tactic of white racists.
It is also supposed to serve as a diversion from the real issue. namely that Mills keeps saying that YOU, Mahndisa, and your new-born baby, and Big Man, his parents, and DV, and his children, and Nulan and his parents, wife and children, and Robin, and, and all are by NATURE predisposed to stupidity and failure.
Which thought process leads to the inevitable conclusion that any resources expended on your new-born kid is likely a waste.
Do you, Mahndisa, honestly think that is an out-workable issue?
I don't think that you do.
...or their underemployment...
What I said was that they have more fundamental differences than things in common.
So WTF if they have this one thing in common--voting for B. Hussein Obama. That has not stopped them from trashing one another, just like his election has not stopped thugs from killing one another in the street.
Or does anyone know a single nigga, conservative or liberal, dark or light, who didn't vote for Obama?
As far as I can tell B. Hussein Obama got all of the n/word vote, but a few good black folks voted for McKinney and others.
More friendly? Yeah, why not.
Why not? 'Cause according to you, Fish, I'm a piece of shit, a snitch and a hypocrite... not to mention a "turd" and whatever other names you feel like calling me whenever I voice a contrary point of view.
I stress your professional failure to make a point, Michael: Why-da-fock should anyone take seriously your recommendations about what black people should do or believe? What are your credentials, apart from talking shit?
Mills...
"I stress your professional failure to make a point,"
What professional failure are you talking about exactly?
Mills...
"Why not? 'Cause according to you, Fish, I'm a piece of shit, a snitch and a hypocrite..."
You are mixing up the time-line here.
Mills...
"What are your credentials"
You don't know? And you're an "insider" in the entertainment business? Sheeet. Even DV had some knowledge of what I did without being told by me.
03 09 09
Michael:
I don't know what you do and am curious. From your blog you revealed that you have had a colorful life indeed. Sounds exciting.
Yes, you are certainly correct that I don't subscribe to racial inferiority or superiority complexes. I used to get mad at your blog because you used the term system of white supremacy, which I felt was wrong because the term itself was an affirmation of institutional racism and its structures. In other words, don't even call the name out lest it come into existance or get fortified. Yet, this was more or less a call for a paradigm shift in parlance, and not a disagreement that there are structures out there that are set up to degrade Blacks. The Colonial legal system is one such example.
If David believes that Blacks are mentally inferior, that saddens me. But I think that debate came about in another forum and seems like it was imported to DV's blog.
I have said before that the Bell Curve is nothing more than big words and fluffy bullshit. Anyone can take statistics and bastardize them, but that doesn't mean that their conclusions are correct.
Whole schools of economics and risk management are based on bastardized statistics and look where that got us!
Nevertheless, I hate seeing the personal insults. I realize that you have only responded, but I am saddened that they've been thrown out there.
David:
You are entertaining and I can see that you have launched a personal tirade against Nulan and Fish. But you can do better. I wish I could see some of the neat screenplays on which you are working.
Perhaps, you could write about dysfunctional nerds who get into blogging arguments (myself included!) hehheheh rather than insulting and degrading people, even if you feel you have cause.
Now, I feel like Rodney King.
03 10 09
Oh and to anon up there, I voted for Bob Barr. But now I wonder if I should have even voted at all.
"
Why is it that when the Tutsis and Hutus are at war, some people try to call it "African tribalism", but when Germany, France, England etc go to war with each other, it's just "war"?"
Recall a handout I saw in school once. In hindsight, it was a pretty revolutionary thing to put in front of kids, (think I might've been early Jr. high at the time) and I wish I remembered the teacher who did it. It showed the effects of propaganda through a newspaper published during the coloni...err.. native genocide in America. It described the natives as "cowardly hiding behind trees and rocks." And in the same breath, referred to their British opponents as "cleverly utilizing available cover on the battlefield." Proper gander, m'friend, all propergander.
The Doc laments propaganda as he, without a moment's pause, dispenses with his own propaganda about "native genocide."
Who are "natives" and how was a genocidal plan concocted to eradicate such an invisible and disparate population?
Well... I hesitate to use the term "Native Americans", because how are you natives of a place named retroactive to your presence there. Err... and the genocide was... when... you know... colonials killed off most of them and took their land.
It was a small story, perhaps you haven't heard...
Ok, let me turn off the sarcasm. That's not really propaganda, though, is it, but just a basic fact. Millions of people were killed off. What else do you call that but genocide?
Or, you may have a point, maybe my numbers are off. Let's say it was only 500,000 of them. Oh, I get it. As long as you're "an invisible and disparate population" you're meet fodder to be killed off. Gotcha.
Doc,
Who is "them" again?
Thor, you can't agree that Native Americans were the victims of genocide?
Man, that's wild.
They might have been the first victims of biological warfare!
Doc and Big Man,
In order for a real genocide to occur or potentially occur one would have to identify a particular group of individuals for genocide?
But who are these particular people? You call THEM "indians," "native americans," etc? But "they" would NEVER had referred to themselves as such? Why do you give existence to that which never existed and then base your genocidal claims on such?
Further, how could one identify a particular people for genocide that one had no idea even existed?
Now, you can claim that early Americans killed, murdered, etc. a lot of disparate people across a vast land. Yet, the same could be said of those very same people. They killed and murdered not only early Americans, but each other as well. They stole land and plundered other villages. The idea that these tribes "owned" land is silly. In what manner did they own the land that wasn't easily usurped by a larger tribe?
You need to substantiate your claims with something a little deeper and don't send me the one story about the small pox blanket. That's hardly evidence of a genocidal scheme as you portray it.
03 10 09
ThorDaddy:
Your logic goes down one path but needs to be fleshed out a bit. The claim that persons living in the Americas were victims of genocide is just about accepted as fact. Are you quibbling over the term genocide or are you quibbling over the fact that historians have labelled native americans differently than they have labelled themselves?
So they killed each other and plundered each others villages before Europeans came. Does their prior conduct exonerate things like the trail of tears?
I get what you are saying. Nobody has a monopoly on goodness or morality. BUT as a matter of historical record you cannot deny what is fact either.
Mahndisa,
Genocide is the purposeful and intentional mass murder of a particular people with extinction as the end goal.
In this regard, your claim of genocide against "natives" being an almost accepted fact shows how far in the grip of a radical autonomist mindset we are in.
We take a definition like genocide and apply it to nonexistent people and show no greater intent than one letter by one individual speaking of spreading small pox via blankets.
This is evidence of genocide?
All you have done is shown that term genocide is nothing but a political sledge hammer and not actually an event that REALLY transpired.
Thordaddy,
Ok, before this goes too far.
Seriously, I am NOT going to have the "What really happened to the native americans" debate. Least of all, this hydra-headed debate monster you've created where you're questioning whether or not these people deserve a separate classification from the people who killed them, and whether or not what happened to them ws really genocide, or what have you. I'm just not.
There is countless historical evidence that native peoples were systematically and purposefully killed off for the sole purpose of taking their land. There are accounts of stores/people that offered money for every "injun scalp" you brought them. And of killing indians being a sport about on par with killing buffalo. What happened to them was genocide, plain and simple. But again, this is neither here nor there.
My whole point in this thing, r.e. the "cowardly hiding" vs. "cleverly utilizing cover" was that two people, doing the exact same thing, can be painted in two drastically different lights depending on who is telling the tale. (see: "African tribalism" versus real "war".)
Doc,
You undercut your argument when you throw around a serious accusation with so little substantiation.
I understand in "your" parts, the genocide of the "indians" is common knowledge. But in my little universe, "indians" is just the concoction of those you accuse of genocide. A concontion that gives the impression that some unified people existed in the New World and were savagely genocided while having "their" land "stolen."
Who concocted the plan for genocide...?
Uh...? White people...
Who did they try to genocide?
Uh...? The indians...
When was the plan concocted and then implemented?
Uh...? A long time ago...
Did it work?
Uh...? NO!
Again, bring some real evidence of genocide and not some anecdotal stories of individuals that didn't have a fuzzy heart for those that thought scalping was cool and stealing a rival's land and raping his women was all in a day's work.
03 11 09
Well Thordaddy:
Doc is right and we both mentioned the Trail of Tears. I explicitly and he implicitly (along with other things via the sale of Injun scalps etc). The Trail of Tears was indeed a governmentally organized mass reloction of natives such that their lands could be taken. This is a matter of historical fact and would fall under the genocidal umbrella.
I think you are getting too caught up in the beauty of sophism. Now you have invoked matters of historical record. Also, early colonial history had laws expressly written to screw with Blacks, Mulattoes, Indians and Mestizos. See this book by recently deceased Harvard professor Higginbotham.
Upon reading that book, you will see that the attitude that government has crafted structures to keep people opressed is rooted in hard facts. Here is some wording from a 1740 statute crafted in South Carolina after the Stono Rebellion of 1739:
"First all Negroes, Mulattos, Indians and Mustees shall be deemed Slaves and Chattels Personal and that their offspring shall follow the Condition of the Mother, except such Persons can prove they were born free or have been manumitted or enfranchised. pg 204"
So the declaration was that all these folks were to be deemed personal property with no legal rights at all. AND even those who were free, had to PROVE it and if they couldn't prove it,they were legally slaves.
ThorDaddy:
You can only rewrite history ever so much without running into the difficulty of reconciling personal biases with what the record shows.
The impact of denying people human rights based upon melonin content is the most egregious and stupid thing I've ever heard of. Yet our whole legal system supported this tragedy up until about forty years ago in many places.
If you cannot see the impact that generations of folks deemed as chattels before the law has on current state of affairs, then you are being intellectually dishonest.
Mahndisa,
You are free to change the goal post, but a very serious accusation is being propagated and only the most naive can't see the underlying implication of such an accusation.
Forcefully relocating individuals or deeming other individuals as having lesser rights is not genocide anymore than forcing jihadists to strip naked, be blindfolded and scared by barking dogs is torture. You can call this sophism. I'll just call it truth.
You are attempting to paint a history that isn't entirely accurate.
I've already conceded that various tribes were targeted, murdered, etc. In fact, they were engaged in the same manner as they engaged others both violently and peacefully.
When someone so casually throws around an accusation that has real implications, are we to allow those people to claim that genocide occured against a non-existent people? Are we to allow you to claim that forced relocation is under the "genocidal umbrella?" Does this mean that blacks who believe in "forced integration" are committing genocide?
What tribes were set for genocide? Who commanded such a plan? When was the plan implemented? If "genocide" is so obvious a fact then certainly you have some kind of answers to the above questions?
Is Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and Barack Obama facilitating the genocide of the black community. Doesn't supporting the fundamental right of black mothers to kill their black children "fall under the genocidal umbrella?"
Let's get to the bottom of this?
03 11 09
Yes TD:
You are engaging in willful intellectual misconduct to the extent that you are picking and choosing from the historical record and focusing too much on self labelling of ethnic groups versus majority consensus labelling. Dismiss this because it is a dead end.
Now why did you not address the Higginbotham text of LAW that was directed towards all BLACKS, Mulattoes, Indians and Meztizos? I believe you did not address this because it would disprove many of your assertions.
If you are to engage in debate, come with more facts. Yes I like Lincoln Douglas debate as much as the next person, but we have to agree on terms before we can go further. I think you are stuck in semantics and terms at this point.
If you really wish to know specific tribes that were relocated and indeed targetted for extermination, why not read Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee? This will give you all the political, historical and legal framework for the belief that natives were marked for extermination and indeed were victims of genocide.
Despite your historical revision I at least agree with you that radical automotons that promote self service above all else are a bane to our society.
03 11 09
"or deeming other individuals as having lesser rights is not genocide anymore than forcing jihadists to strip naked, be blindfolded and scared by barking dogs is tortur"
TD:
On this I disagree. You are conflating two very different concepts. The jihadists that you mentioned have been accused and or found guilty of terrorist acts that have taken innocent lives. As a matter of course, criminals get their rights taken away for infringing on others' rights.
HOWEVER, when legislation is crafted to exclude groups of people from the legal process and furthermore calls these people and their decendents chattels, then that is the makings of genocide.
Genocide is a process and this process has been replicated time and time again in many places around the world. The first aspect to genocide is to exclude the target from participation in the legal process.
The next aspect is to confine the targets into areas that are of the oppressors choosing. This is to keep an eye on the target and make sure they can be easily located at any given time.
Concurrently, school children are taught about the evils of the target and pretty soon the targets' children will not be able to access education at all. So the target is excluded from the legal process and therefore legal protections, excluded from education so its decendents cannot educate themselves to get out of this problem.
Cconcurrently the oppressors impose economic sanctions on the target. Trade is restricted or outright forbidden and is heavily regulated when it occurs.
Concurrently medical experimentation takes place under the guise of caring for this poor minority group.
Lastly the target is killed off.
I can count many examples of this in the historical record and so yes, native american were victimized by genocide.
Mahndisa,
And so you are in full agreement that individuals like Obama, Sharpton, Jackson and Nulan are engaged in a "process of genocide" against the American black community with their unabashed support for the fundamental right to genocide black children in utero?
Also, what if someone spends 10+ years and has 4 kids with an "indian?" Does that give one more credence than one who simply reads a book?
Again, define genocide and start with the known FACT that no tribes were ACTUALLY genocided...
Mahndisa,
You keep accusing me of "semantics," "sophism," etc. But clearly, you are engaged in the kind of liberalizing of the language that disallows any potential for understanding.
If you can simply create new parameters for what consitutes "genocide" then you obviously open the door for others to re-interpret what that really means.
For instance, Obama's reversal of federal funding for embryonic stem cells could be construed as falling "under the genocidal umbrella," no?
In fact, couldn't your very liberal interpretation of "genocide" actually help to mask real instances of genocide?
"The population of North America prior to the first sustained European contact in 1492 CE is a matter of active debate. Various estimates of the pre-contact Native population of the continental U.S. and Canada range from 1.8 to over 12 million. 4 Over the next four centuries, their numbers were reduced to about 237,000 as Natives were almost wiped out. Author Carmen Bernand estimates that the Native population of what is now Mexico was reduced from 30 million to only 3 million over four decades. 13 Peter Montague estimates that Europeans once ruled over 100 million Natives throughout the Americas."
Source
Looks like genocide to me.
Fisher,
So you agree that Obama is participating in the genocide of black America's progeny?
You also agree, given the understood "black" paradigm of white oppression/black suppression, that blacks are genociding "whites" with an unprecendented and disproportional black on white murder rate?
Are these also acts of genocide? If not, why not?
Well Farst. Given your definition of genocide you'd have to deny the Nazi genocide on the Jews. But, of course, that you won't deny.
Fisher,
My definition for "genocide" is non-existent. The definition of "genocide" can either have a particular meaning or it can have a more liberalized meaning therefore opening up the door to a revision of historic fact.
For instance, a revisionist can claim that the unforseen and unintentional death of certain "aboriginals" (remember, the "indians" weren't the oiginal habitants, but at best, were descendants) through a lack of immunity to certain diseases can be lumped in as equal to the intentional murder of same "indians." This can all falls under the "genocidal umbrella."
So in short, by your own willingness to liberalize the definition of "genocide," you allow YOURSELF to revise history.
I have given both you and Mahndisa an actual present-day situation in which you can apply YOUR definition of genocide. This situation involves real present-day actors and events. Yet, both remain inexplicably tongue-tied as to whether the situation I describe falls under the "genocidal umbrella."
And yet you are unequivocal in your certainty about events that transpired hundreds of years ago? LOL!!!
What explains this mindset if not radical autonomy and the autonomous god you worship?
See Farst, it's like I said. Given your definition of genocide you'd have to deny the Nazi genocide on the Jews. But, of course, that you won't deny. Instead you're talking about everything else in the world. So tell me Farst. Why are you denying the genocide of Natives in America, but not that of the Jews in Europe in the 1940s?
thordaddy said,
Genocide is the purposeful and intentional mass murder of a particular people with extinction as the end goal.
Fisher retorted,
See Farst, it's like I said. Given your definition of genocide you'd have to deny the Nazi genocide on the Jews. But, of course, that you won't deny. Instead you're talking about everything else in the world. So tell me Farst. Why are you denying the genocide of Natives in America, but not that of the Jews in Europe in the 1940s?
Please walk us through your understanding, Mike?
Why exactly do I have to deny or affirm anything if you can't even provide a particular definition (I know that's redundant) for what "genocide" actually is?
I'm not particularly knowledgeable about the Jewish holocaust outside of those bits of information that are generally understood.
Like, WHO where the "genociders" and who did they attempt to "genocide?" My angle and vision on all things Jewish is far less complex and far more fuzzy than what YOU have come to understand about Jews.
On the other hand, I've spent an incredible amount of time with an "indian."
03 11 09
"Mahndisa,
And so you are in full agreement that individuals like Obama, Sharpton, Jackson and Nulan are engaged in a "process of genocide" against the American black community with their unabashed support for the fundamental right to genocide black children in utero?"
Yes. I have made that quite clear. Furthermore I would also agree with your previous statements that in utero murder is inconsistent with the moral praxis of Christianity.
Despite this agreement, I damner disagree with everything else you have said. And I am not being as liberal with my language as you stipulate. More or less I have tried to address the multiple issues you have conflated. Again you don't seem to get that genocide is a process. I outlined that process above and can apply it to many people throughout the historical record. In particular the Armenians of Turkey circa 1919 AND the Srebenica massacre in old Yugoslavia all the way down to the salting of Carthaginian land after the war such that they couldn't grow any more food. Yes this is genocide.
Yes TD:
I tire of this ridiculous exercise in sophism. But our conversations show that even ideological enemies can have some common ground. On this note, I am hopeful for humanity.
Mahndisa,
At least you show something comparable to consistency. But what if a real live "indian" disagreed with your assessment that "indians" were genocided? What if that "indian" didn't really see herself in the way you do, as an "indian?" What if the "white" man genociding "her" people never really happened?
You say "genocide" is a process, but it is nothing without a particular genocider, a particular people to be genocided and then actually wanton and intentional murder.
So who are the genociders as it has been shown above that YOU willingly conflate the "genocided" and lump "them" into a group that many would agree doesn't exist and never has and never will? And not only do you conflate WHO was alledgedly genocided, but you lump in unforseen and unintentional deaths from disease with actual murder.
This is more than sophism. This is slander as no one doubts who you have in mind as the genociders. Although, you're never really specify as to who you claim committed the genocide against "native" Americans.
You are well aware that disease brought in by the new settlers was the biggest cause of death of those you call "indians."
Why do you attempt to equate this known historical fact with murder? Is this not revisionist history?
You also claim that relocation is under the "genocidal umbrella." Does this mean that the "forced integration" that many blacks support is under the "genocidal umbrella?" Is forced integration just part of the genocidal process?
I hope you take some time to answer my serious questions and not pretend as though this is a game of semantics and sophism.
Farst...
"I'm not particularly knowledgeable about the Jewish holocaust outside of those bits of information that are generally understood."
roflmao.
A cowardly God of Thunder.
Farst, that's a farce. You know only "bits of information"? In this day and age? You ever watch TV? Go to the movies? Watch the History channel? Read a book?
So what is it, Farst? According to you, did the genocide of European Jews during the 1940s happen or not?
03 11 09
You also claim that relocation is under the "genocidal umbrella." Does this mean that the "forced integration" that many blacks support is under the "genocidal umbrella?" Is forced integration just part of the genocidal process?
OK TD:
For shits and grins I will humor you. Yes I am consistent. But I think you are going about this whole argument the wrong way. Labelling seems to be an obsession of yours. And labelling is somewhat ridiculous but the human mind likes to categorize according to data we interpret via our senses. So in a very real way race exists (despite anthropolocial pedagogy teaching the opposite). I am sure that some native americans might not view the world in the same way that I do, but that doesn't mean that they were not victims of injustice. And frankly, it makes more sense to speak of people the way they refer to themselves. So the Cherokee, the Lakota, the Sioux and other self named tribes were victims of genocide.
To answer the question you stated above, I actually am against the very concept of forced integration AS MUCH as I am against the concept of forced segregation.
I say live and let live and people should be able to live wherever the hell they wish to live, if they can afford it. And 'affordance' doensn't just mean money.
When I consider the impact that forced integration has had on America in general, I think it may have been rooted in nice ideals but it wasn't implemented all that well. The prime argument is that people shouldn't be segregated by race and certainly not in the educational system. But if you look deeper, there is this underlying thought that Black schools were insufficient to offer a good education to Blacks so they had to go to a white school. Therefore, this underlying process reinforces racialist ideals.
I believe that it is morally reprehensible to hold other human beings as chattels and less that deserving of legal status. Clearly this is the legacy of our country when it pertains to the rights of Blacks, Mulattos, Mestizos and Indians. The best way to deal with these legal inequalities would have been to remove those laws that sanctioned this behavior in the first place.
Forcing people to live together, work together and go to the same school is the beginning of tyranny.
Now since I have addressed your questions, you must answer mine. What say you about the legal disenfranchisement of these ethnic groups AND the long term consequences of such?
03 11 09
And one more thing, you are assigning belief systems to me and other Black Americans that aren't necessarily applicable. You make the mistake of lumping Blacks and a so called Black world view into one category but don't do that with whites. Your position is therefore untenable from the start.
Notice I said absolutely NOTHING about white people or white supremacy causing genocide of native Americans. I referred you to the Dee Brown Book because the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT was the cause for this genocide. The Federal government is slowly but surely usurping the rights of all of us because we live under oligarchical tyranny.
They used your birth certificate and mine as leverage to pay the national debt that they incurred due to fiscal irresponsibility and or intentional fraud.
Frankly, I am less concerned about all this Black white talk than I am about the plight of HUMANITY. There will be a revolution if things continue down this path. And on this we have another agreement I am sure.
Fisher,
Everything I know says the Nazi regime attempted a genocide against Jews, but ultimately failed.
Mahndisa,
I've provided the definition for "genocide." You have neither affirmed it nor refuted it. On the other hand, I've refute the definition that you and Fisher hold that seems like a very liberal one. I've already acknowledged murder, oppression and such. Does that rise to the claim of "genocide?"
You must first tell me what YOU think genocide means or else we get no where in deciding whether your claim of genocide against "native" Americans is actually real.
Let's start at step one and go from there instead of starting at YOUR conclusion and fitting the definition of genocide to those events you claim are under the "genocidal umbrella."
What is genocide? It is not merely a "process."
03 11 09
Aha:
Now this is why the discussion can go no further. Genocide is a PROCESS. It doesn't happen overnight except express massacres which occur as the last phase. If you cannot see this, then like I said we cannot proceed further.
03 11 09
Here is a definition of genocide from the guy who coined the term sometime around 1944. Even HE described it as a process. See below:
In proposing this new term, Lemkin had in mind "a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves."
Now, as I said before genocide is a process and I explicitly laid out its components previously. Given this, your definition is way too restrictive because you are focusing on one action, whereas the PROCESS of genocide has many different actions.
Mahndisa,
To say "genocide" is a "process" is equivalent to claiming multiplication is also "genocide" because it too is a process.
Meaning, genocide HAS TO BE more than just a process. Genocide has to have real and particular components for it to mean anything.
So, who were the "genociders?"
Who was the "national group" to be genocided?
If a group of settlers came across a foreign entity and then battled and warred for terrority, is that "genocide?"
Does "genocide" include unintentionally acquiring diseases to which one was not immune?
If a large majority of "natives" died from disease and a large portion of that remaining minority died warring with settlers over land and resource, is that "genocide?"
Again, you are starting with your conclusion and filling in the blanks with modern understandings and definitions. You wouldn't claim that this "tribe" tried to genocide that "tribe" even though these tribes were known to rape, murder and pillage each other.
Be honest, Mahndisa... Did you study the history and then come to the conclusion that the "natives" were genocided or did you start with the conclusion that "natives" were genocided and found the "appropriate" evidence to substantiate your revisionism?
We already known for a fact that you have revised actual historic fact in referencing a group that never really existed. And you reference this group, ironically, by adopting the language of the supposed genocider's descendants.
03 12 09
Now I see your motive, TD it is just to annoy people and spew garbage. I have humored you enough and that is that. You seem to have obsessive issues and I cannot help with that.
Multiplication is a process just as genocide? That is the most patently ludicris thing I've ever heard. No more wasting my time with you.
Mahndisa,
It doesn't surprise me that you would think of such a thing. After all, apparently we are "ideological enemies." But, isn't that just a polite way of saying that because you are black and I am white, therefore, our "truths" must be opposite?
You keep claiming genocide to be a "process."
I keep telling you genocide IS something MUCH more than that.
Why do you disagree?
You disagree because you really don't want to discuss the real actors in the "genocide."
If you are forced to really look at historical fact then your claim of "genocide" of the "natives" looks less and less credible. That's why you cling to this notion that "genocide" is a process.
Who are the "genociders" and who are the "genocided?"
Did the "genocide" start in 1492, 1776 or somewhere in between?
Why do you refuse to answer these questions while claiming that the "genocide" of the "natives" is a known historical fact?
If you make such an incendiary assertion, don't you need to come forward with some clear basic facts about actors and dates?
[[[From dictionary.com:
gen⋅o⋅cide
/ˈdʒɛnəˌsaɪd/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [jen-uh-sahyd] Show IPA
–noun
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group. ]]]
Jesus, what are we arguing again? My head hurts.
Lot of people got killed= genocide. Yes, I know this is an oversimplification, and yes i'm inviting you to throw some semantic re-interpretation of the same, damning us into an even more interminable chasing of our philosophical tails here, but seriously, to quote Chris from Family Guy, where is the chase, and when can we cut to it? Even given your claim that these people don't deserve the classification based on their being a specific racial classification, (which is HIGHLY debatable) they still fall under the "G" word based on the fact that they were all a part of the same nation when it happened. And no, of course they weren't all just one unified nation. So let's say each individual tribe/nation that fell victim was separate from one another. I'll even allow you that not all groups/tribes even considered themselves distinct nations. Let's say some of them were "invisible and disparate populations", to borrow your words. Let's take things to an extreme and allow that say, only three of the numerous distinct tribal entities actually thought of themselves as possessing a national identity.
It's still genocide. Further, by this line of thinking it's more than likely multiple genocides against multiple indigenous peoples/groups. Also, given the cultural definition of the word-- let's not forget their differences in religion as yet another justification for their being persecuted-- the cultural definition could stand here too.
So either way you slice it, Odin, it's still genocide. Playing this game of semantics only obscures a very simple issue.
Doc,
It's because you think it's a "very simple issue" that you, like Mahndisa, open up a Pandora's box of real-time genocide right beneath your nose.
First, WHO were the "genociders" of the "native" Americans?
You, like Mahndisa, refuse to answer this question because it would become apparent that your notion of a "indian genocide" being a "very simple issue" is quite laughable.
But I digress, as current genocidal processes necessitate immediate action given your understanding of genocide.
For instance, whites are below birth rate, about to die in unprecedented numbers, openly abort future progeny and allow blacks to commit an inexplicable amount of murder and violence against themselves. Blacks, in turn, support open borders, abortion, AA, more lenient justice system, etc. (these are of course generalizations).
Is this the process of genocide?
If the President and First Lady, Al Sharpton and Michael Steele all support black's women's fundamental "right" to kill their children in utero, is this not genocide?
Please restrain yourself from the soothing notion that this is but a game of semantics. It is not.
Native American population declined by about 95 percent after they met Europeans.
If that ain't genocide, what is? Anybody considered an "Injun" was fair game. Didn't matter if they considered themselves one nation or tribe. White folks considered them all the same, and killed them as such.
Uhhh... why'd you drag this one out the archives, DV? You miss the blood-stirring entertainment value of a good cockfight?
Because it's some of the best writing on the net.
Know of a better exchange ... post a link.
I'm such a middle child. I just want everybody to stop fighting.
DV, Do something quick! Post a naked snatch pic, whatever. (LOL)
Know of a better exchange ... post a link.
Done.
"If you ask to have it both ways, then take it both ways and shut the fuck up." Love it. I actually think that's the most accurate statement I've heard on the whole "n-word" debate.
[quote]Why the virulent relentless and vindictive expressions of personal animus far outside the boundaries of what one would expect on a blog?[/quote]
I only know the line of thinking of one of these 3 men that are engaged in the battle.
He has a problem with:
* EGOISM
* An inability to make note that HIS THEORIES are largely IN PLACE within the community and, in truth, need to be PUT ON TRIAL rather than advanced
* a resistance to establishing a system WITHIN Black America in which people can be ALLOWED to proceed as they choose but ALSO face the FULL BURDEN of their flawed theories, with the hopes that the warning from others to "Pull UP" will one day sink in and thus they will CHANGE.
On paper me and this gentleman should be friends as we are in the same general field.
In practice this brother shows that BOOK KNOWLEDGE doesn't always translate into the common sense of one being able to "play nice" within the sand box with others - as he attempts to mow down the castle that others have built up so they are forced into his.
BOOK KNOWLEDGE?!?!?!?!?!no stupid.
I've discarded more embodied knowledge than you'll acquire over the remainder of your lifetime.
the reason we can't be friends Ronald - and that I don't even attempt to be agreeable with you - is because you're an insufferable and masturbatory moron incapable of holding up his side of a constructive dialog.
your projective and hypergraphic tirades completely undermine any possibility of your usefully engaging with anyone, on any topic, ever....,
that said, I can't wait to be entertained by what promises to be an epic exchange between yourself and our host here.
[quote]I've discarded more embodied knowledge than you'll acquire over the remainder of your lifetime.[/quote]
So KCnulan - if YOU have discarded this much knowledge in reference to ME........what is your relative quantity of discarded knowledge as compared to one of the people in the housing project in KC?
SURELY you are superior to them?
[quote]that said, I can't wait to be entertained by what promises to be an epic exchange between yourself and our host here.[/quote]
I 'feel' brother DV in his taste for the photographic art known as "the Black female form".
When it comes to his affliction and adDICKsion to Lil' Wayne - I just ain't relating to him.
I can go pull up nearly any Lil Wayne lyric right now and see IGNORANCE where DV sees An African Griot.
THAT'S IT!!!
I will make reference to the FUNCTION of the historical Griot and then see how Lil' Weezer matches up to it.
I don't recall any West African Griot needing a bullet proof vest or talking about African Queens with reference to their reproductive accoutrement.
So KCnulan - if YOU have discarded this much knowledge in reference to ME........what is your relative quantity of discarded knowledge as compared to one of the people in the housing project in KC?
SURELY you are superior to them?
I got love for all my little hood rocks - cause once upon a time - that was me.
You OTOH Ronald,
shiiiiittt.....,
Your mark azz could burst into flames and I wouldn't piss on you to put you out.....,
Post a Comment