Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
betsy

"The Problem Of Blackness"

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Everyone knows that the greatest experts on "black" Americans are "white" Canadians. 

What's with all the "" quotation marks? Are you not confident?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, hernanday said:

That would be like saying if there are no fruits made from dragons, how can you say non-dragon fruits?

 

No.  That would be like saying if there are no white-skinned people, how can you say "non-white-skinned people?"

 

 

Quote

Paleface, not white face. Pink is paler than red indian!

It's still about skin color!  That's the point!

 

Surely you don't mean white people are literally white - as in paper white? :lol:

 

Quote

No one is arguing about European cultural identities, you can be as Italian, French, Spanard, british as you want to be.

:rolleyes:

There are black Brits, brown Spaniards, and white Africans!  Let's be clear here:

 

We're talking Caucasians!

 

Btw, part of European cultural identities is their colonization of some parts of the world, and establishment of their civilization on those worlds!  Most of those colonized by white folks still enjoy the fruits of that colonization!  That's a fact!

 

That's the problem with you guys this days - you change history.  You believe what you want to believe, and you think what you believe becomes the truth! 

 

Anyway, I already proved to you that distinction of skin (races) have always been around us.  Cultural legends about differing skin colors have existed since ancient times!  That there are people who are colored black, white, brown, is not a figment of my imagination!

 

Btw, when I say ancient times - I don't mean 10 years ago! :lol:

 

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Bryan said:

Like the Beastie Boys? Kid Rock? Vanilla Ice? Pitbull? House of Pain? Mackelmore? Eminem? Machine Gun Kelly? Mac Miller? Those black guys?

Yo, them copycats!  Aks Ice T.

 

 

Quote

Origins

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hip_hop_music

 

 

Their food - soul food - shows a culture.  They've got their own dance. Even the way Black American  talks - it's a culture. 

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, hernanday said:

Did white people live in ancient china?  Did they classify themselves as white?

 

They traded with Europeans!  It doesn't take living in places to see obvious distinctions.

 

Furthermore, it's not only white people who "classified" themselves as white!  It's also people from other races who classified them as white!  Of course people notice distinctions.  They make comparisons!  What's so hard about understanding that?

It would be like me noticing that people are way too short compared to me when I visit the land of Knee-High!  So I refer to them as "shorty."  They didn't call and label  themselves, "shorty."  It was me who did it!  People of races have their own labels of other races!   

Are you getting what I'm saying here?

 

Lest someone jumps and accuse me of making fun of midgets - get lost!  I'm not here to make fun of anyone. I'm making a sarcastic, mocking point over what I consider such juvenile arguments coming from someone who claims to have gotten all his nuggets of information from.....academia! :lol:

 

What a joke.  You guys give academia a bad name.

 

Maybe you were not really paying attention when your academia guru was explaining things?  Like.....the way you're not paying attention to the Chinese legend I gave you about races?  Cooking clay people in the kiln - remember?

 

 

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, hernanday said:

The fact that the categorization of whites can change, shows that whites are not being described for their physical nature but rather something social.  Unless you are trying to say that portuguese born in 1910 raced magically shifted in mass by the 1960s?

 

:rolleyes:

 

There are various nuances in colors.   How many shades of green are there?

 

Do you see white people looking paper-white?

Let me know when they start calling VISIBLY black Americans like my big-time fave brother  Denzel Washington, white.  Uhhh actually, if you really look......... Denzel looks more coffee brown than black.  (Or I'm thinking of another black?)  I'll take a look at Denzel again.

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how the Lefties would react to a course called The problem of Blackness. Now let's remember this Whiteness course is being taught by the African studies department.

The Problem of Blackness. Under the auspices of the Caucasian studies department, this course examines the problems Black people cause to society, their inherent racism, and the social conflicts caused by their violence and criminality. The course will also examine the general sexual immorality present within Black communities which lead to teenage, single parent families and burgeoning welfare roles. The depredations of Black street gangs and the immorality taught by Black musical artists will also be examined.. A holistic approach will be undertaken to consider methods in which the Black community can heal itself of its violence, racism and criminality, and reach out to other communities it has harmed by its behaviour.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, betsy said:

No.  That would be like saying if there are no white-skinned people, how can you say "non-white-skinned people?"

It's still about skin color!  That's the point!

Surely you don't mean white people are literally white - as in paper white? :lol:

Well it seems you agree with me that white does not refer to skin color, because we seem to agree that no one is white like paper.

And that has been my point.  The racial concept of whiteness was never about skin color, it was always about an oppresive system designed to oppress anyone classified as non-white regardless of the fact that their appearance.

 

11 hours ago, betsy said:

:rolleyes:

There are black Brits, brown Spaniards, and white Africans!  Let's be clear here:

We're talking Caucasians!

Btw, part of European cultural identities is their colonization of some parts of the world, and establishment of their civilization on those worlds!  Most of those colonized by white folks still enjoy the fruits of that colonization!  That's a fact!

 

The term caucasian as used is odd to me, there is not even a consensus of what it means. In Russia and east europe, the caucasian people (as in those from the ethnic groups from the caucaus mountains) are called black people.  So I am not even sure what you mean by the term caucasian.  The fruit of colonization for non-white people, is a poisonous fruit, if you try to enjoy it, it kills you. Most countries were destroyed by colonialism, it was just an economic system to suck money out of the colonized.

11 hours ago, betsy said:

That's the problem with you guys this days - you change history.  You believe what you want to believe, and you think what you believe becomes the truth! 

Anyway, I already proved to you that distinction of skin (races) have always been around us.  Cultural legends about differing skin colors have existed since ancient times!  That there are people who are colored black, white, brown, is not a figment of my imagination!

Btw, when I say ancient times - I don't mean 10 years ago! :lol:

You have proven and I agree that people noticed different skin colors, but races as we view them today, no, this is a colonial concept developed out of nationalistic europe in the colonial era.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, hernanday said:

Well it seems you agree with me that white does not refer to skin color, because we seem to agree that no one is white like paper.

And that has been my point.  The racial concept of whiteness was never about skin color, it was always about an oppresive system designed to oppress anyone classified as non-white regardless of the fact that their appearance.

 

 

No, I don't agree with you.  It's been explained.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, betsy said:

:rolleyes:

 

There are various nuances in colors.   How many shades of green are there?

 

Do you see white people looking paper-white?

Let me know when they start calling VISIBLY black Americans like my big-time fave brother  Denzel Washington, white.  Uhhh actually, if you really look......... Denzel looks more coffee brown than black.  (Or I'm thinking of another black?)  I'll take a look at Denzel again.

The point is that when whites call themselves white, they are calling themselves that as a classification system!  It is not based on their color.  Whites claimed that africans had black and brown skin and asians had yellow skin and brown skin.  They knew their skin was not white but some kind of pink or beige. Hence whiteness is different.  Whiteness is an ideology or a religion about who will and won't get.  Most the people classified as yellow or black now, would be classified that way 300 years ago.   300 years ago, most the people in Europe were not counted as white people, it is a status and a ideology, not a real skin color or race.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, betsy said:

They traded with Europeans!  It doesn't take living in places to see obvious distinctions.

Furthermore, it's not only white people who "classified" themselves as white!  It's also people from other races who classified them as white!  Of course people notice distinctions.  They make comparisons!  What's so hard about understanding that?

 

As far as the north american context goes, we don't call people white because people in china may have used that term (and I am not sure they did), it is because white people chose to call themselves that starting in the 1600s.  In the 1400s and 1500s whites were calling themselves christians, not white, the term was not used like that.

 

 

11 hours ago, betsy said:

It would be like me noticing that people are way too short compared to me when I visit the land of Knee-High!  So I refer to them as "shorty."  They didn't call and label  themselves, "shorty."  It was me who did it!  People of races have their own labels of other races!   

Are you getting what I'm saying here?

They do now, back then, it just didn't exist like that.  They knew people looked different, but it was not a codified system.

 

11 hours ago, betsy said:

Lest someone jumps and accuse me of making fun of midgets - get lost!  I'm not here to make fun of anyone. I'm making a sarcastic, mocking point over what I consider such juvenile arguments coming from someone who claims to have gotten all his nuggets of information from.....academia! :lol:

What a joke.  You guys give academia a bad name.

Maybe you were not really paying attention when your academia guru was explaining things?  Like.....the way you're not paying attention to the Chinese legend I gave you about races?  Cooking clay people in the kiln - remember?

Do you have any evidence China maintained a race base system during this period?  Do you even know if the terms are translated accurately or figuratively.  And what evidence is there of white people calling themselves white in this period?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, hernanday said:

The point is that when whites call themselves white, they are calling themselves that as a classification system!  It is not based on their color.  Whites claimed that africans had black and brown skin and asians had yellow skin and brown skin.  They knew their skin was not white but some kind of pink or beige. Hence whiteness is different.  Whiteness is an ideology or a religion about who will and won't get.  Most the people classified as yellow or black now, would be classified that way 300 years ago.   300 years ago, most the people in Europe were not counted as white people, it is a status and a ideology, not a real skin color or race.

 

Whiteness is a religion? 

 

Okay.  :lol:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Argus said:

I wonder how the Lefties would react to a course called The problem of Blackness. Now let's remember this Whiteness course is being taught by the African studies department.

The Problem of Blackness. Under the auspices of the Caucasian studies department, this course examines the problems Black people cause to society, their inherent racism, and the social conflicts caused by their violence and criminality. The course will also examine the general sexual immorality present within Black communities which lead to teenage, single parent families and burgeoning welfare roles. The depredations of Black street gangs and the immorality taught by Black musical artists will also be examined.. A holistic approach will be undertaken to consider methods in which the Black community can heal itself of its violence, racism and criminality, and reach out to other communities it has harmed by its behaviour.

 

There are plenty of black studies in America and no doubt cover many of the topics you discuss above, whether it's perceived and/or the reasons for them.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, WestCoastRunner said:

There are plenty of black studies in America and no doubt cover many of the topics you discuss above, whether it's perceived and/or the reasons for them.  

No, there isn't one. Black studies are done by Black/African studies departments. Not the same thing either. Those celebrate Blacks. They don't denigrate them. And there is a difference between Black students engaging in self examination, even self criticism, and Blacks engaging in pure racism towards whites. This course appears to be deliberately designed to teach people to hate white people.

Edited by Argus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Argus said:

No, there isn't one. Black studies are done by Black/African studies departments. Not the same thing either. Those celebrate Blacks. They don't denigrate them. And there is a difference between Black students engaging in self examination, even self criticism, and Blacks engaging in pure racism towards whites. This course appears to be deliberately designed to teach people to hate white people.

In white universities which blanconate african americans historically. How does it teach people to hate pink skin people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Argus said:

I wonder how the Lefties would react to a course called The problem of Blackness. Now let's remember this Whiteness course is being taught by the African studies department.

The Problem of Blackness. Under the auspices of the Caucasian studies department, this course examines the problems Black people cause to society, their inherent racism, and the social conflicts caused by their violence and criminality. The course will also examine the general sexual immorality present within Black communities which lead to teenage, single parent families and burgeoning welfare roles. The depredations of Black street gangs and the immorality taught by Black musical artists will also be examined.. A holistic approach will be undertaken to consider methods in which the Black community can heal itself of its violence, racism and criminality, and reach out to other communities it has harmed by its behaviour.

 

A course on Black behavior in society would never ever be allowed in Canada or the USA. That would be a no-no and very politically incorrect and racist to be able to do such a thing. The liberal media would go ballistic. There are just some taboos and sacred cows that must never be discussed. Now if one wants to start up a course on how to demonize Caucasians well that would be acceptable. The fake and phony media would remain silent on that one. The media would probably even go along with it. Such hypocrites indeed. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hernanday said:

In white universities which blanconate african americans historically. How does it teach people to hate pink skin people?

There have been many professors in many American university's that have advocated for white genocide. This is a fact, and a fact that the North American media will not expose as much as they would expose some white professor advocating black genocide. The NA white media is very anti-white. Amazing, isn't it? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, taxme said:

There have been many professors in many American university's that have advocated for white genocide. This is a fact, and a fact that the North American media will not expose as much as they would expose some white professor advocating black genocide. The NA white media is very anti-white. Amazing, isn't it? 

The one white professor who said that?  O please, that is like a joke, no one takes it seriously, and Trump is in charge, congress is white, military leader is white, president about to be white, senate is white, WILL NEVER HAPPEN.  And who the hell is going to carry out this white genocide?  African Americans have no interest in killing whites in large numbers, Native Indians are down to 6 million, 50% of Hispanics are white wannabees and identify themselves as white, and are completely conquered in central america by white minority apartheid type governments.  I don't see yellows or indians doing it either, their main enemies are each other.

And plenty of white professors advocated original genocide, and the genocide was carried out.  Original people did not chose to give up their language, religion, culture and birth names, whites committed genocide on them (and the red indians) and took it away.

 

NA media is white media, whites run it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, taxme said:

A course on Black behavior in society would never ever be allowed in Canada or the USA.

When you phrase it that way then ... then of course not.  University courses aren't set up to finger point 'behavior' of races and blame people.  They are supposed to foster analysis, deeper thinking and criticism.  That might even include being provocative, but please hold your breathless indignance for a quick moment: realize that those who call out "no fair" to every issue regarding race (maybe like a son/daughter does to a parent who is cutting pie pieces unfairly) aren't the audience for such things.  They just don't understand the context to begin with.  That's fair, as university isn't for context-free thinkers, so these kind of critics will call themselves out.

Universities are starting to put policies in to stop people from discussing such things.  Some see it as censorship, but I'm starting to see it as necessary forms of in-person moderation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/25/2016 at 9:31 AM, Michael Hardner said:

The thing that you are all missing is that it's whites doing all of this reflection.  If black Americans made a course called 'the Negro problem' no one would care.

This story is hysterical reaction to people who are afraid to look at their own culture critically.

Well, whiteness is fragile so.....

Won't be long before the Professor starts receiving hate mail, and white supremacists show up on campus to protest. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Some see it as censorship, but I'm starting to see it as necessary forms of in-person moderation.

Made necessary according to rules established by persons in-camera. I get where you're coming from but I'm sure you must see the problem here.

Those who will see it as censorship will always find forms of im-moderation that are deemed to be just as necessary, especially if they're excluded from the rule making process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, eyeball said:

Those who will see it as censorship will always find forms of im-moderation that are deemed to be just as necessary, especially if they're excluded from the rule making process.

Ok, maybe the government should issue licenses to express oneself ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A statement put out by the University:   "We believe this course, which is one of thousands offered at our university, will benefit students who are interested in developing a deeper understanding of race issues, the course is a challenge and response to racism of all kinds."

I hope they review the 'Brown Eyes vs Blue Eyes Group Prejudice' experiment that Jane Elliott conducted in her classroom after Martin Luther King was assassinated.  She had a mostly white class and wasn't sure how to get her students to understand what the black community was going through.

I'm sure most of you have heard about it, but if not, you can read about the experiment here.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2016‎-‎12‎-‎29 at 1:03 AM, hernanday said:

The one white professor who said that?  O please, that is like a joke, no one takes it seriously, and Trump is in charge, congress is white, military leader is white, president about to be white, senate is white, WILL NEVER HAPPEN.  And who the hell is going to carry out this white genocide?  African Americans have no interest in killing whites in large numbers, Native Indians are down to 6 million, 50% of Hispanics are white wannabees and identify themselves as white, and are completely conquered in central america by white minority apartheid type governments.  I don't see yellows or indians doing it either, their main enemies are each other.

And plenty of white professors advocated original genocide, and the genocide was carried out.  Original people did not chose to give up their language, religion, culture and birth names, whites committed genocide on them (and the red indians) and took it away.

 

NA media is white media, whites run it.

O please. To say such a thing is deplorable. Why would anyone want to even suggest that all white people should be eliminated?

If I said that a certain race should be illuminated you would be the first one here to call me a white supremist racist. Sure we are the numbers right now but that will be changing in the future as all Caucasian countries continue to flood their countries with non-whites. Any white person who can't figure that one out well we might as well sign our own death warrant and get it over with now.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, taxme said:

Any white person who can't figure that one out well we might as well sign our own death warrant and get it over with now.

So the thinking here is: "Whites may some day not be as powerful and dominant as today, so we shouldn't allow a comment like this because one day it might be an actual threat."

That is about the whitest statement I have read in awhile.  Privilege seems to have some clear traits, and giving an inch isn't one of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

So the thinking here is: "Whites may some day not be as powerful and dominant as today, so we shouldn't allow a comment like this because one day it might be an actual threat."

That is about the whitest statement I have read in awhile.  Privilege seems to have some clear traits, and giving an inch isn't one of them.

It's all about whether Caucasians want to call and have a country of their own where they are the majority or just not worry about it anymore, and become a minority in their homelands. I am pretty sure that Africans, Asians or Arabs would not allow their countries to be taken over  by another race of people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...