Getting spat at because of who i am

Hamilton wrote:

very interesting concept,with i being a direct descendent of lonnie the banjo boy in deliverance, it may be time for you and i to start a joint venture , we can rent my west Virginia relatives to black neighborhoods that have been deprived of the experience of dealing with real american whites, not the nouveau , i want the black experience whites, now settling in CH.
i feel we will make a fortune, you can spend your half on trying to promote your book, Why Did Yakub Create The White Man and i can buy teeth for my relatives.

Mamacita wrote: Outside Child

CTK, what I wonder is why are you so quick to jump up to defend whites and jews(are they white I am not sure exactly) but so quick to shoot down Black people?
You say you are Black yet you behave like captain save a whitey(NO DISRESPECT INTENDED AT ALL JUST A BIT OF LEVITY) so please explain why! Are you whipped?

damn.... I'm going to enjoy my weekend, hope ya'll do too :shock:

Park Place wrote:

What is wrong with saying "the Jews?"

.

MHA wrote: Inelson, I am so sorry you find me so offensive. I will say to you that the diverse views you expect all Jews to have would NOT have allowed them to survive as a people for these 5000 or so years; personally, I find Jews like you naive, and ahistorical, and ultimately the happy-go-lucky unbeknownst betrayers of 'your' cultural and historical heritage, and progeny -- but that's just me.

Appositionally, I do agree with you that the situation in Israel and Palestine is abhorrent, and need of some sort of resolution. Indeed, I will even go as far as to be slightly critical of the very founding of the nation itself; but this opinion, and the honing of my position on 'The Jews' - the term you so dislike me saying - are so perpendicular to what the issue at hand here is, which is the offense act of spitting as one walks by...

Furthermore, you claim YOUR Jewish heritage, disclaim my right to say 'the Jews', THEN claim that 'the Jews do not like to be all lumped in and spoken for'. Sure they don't, and that is not my intention. My intention is to tell you what I think. However, one of the distinct members of 'YOUR Group' lays out what HE sees as detrimental to the survival of 'HIS people', and he calls those people 'self-hating Jews'. so whether you think he is repugnant or not, he has philosophical, political, AND cultural sway amongst 'THE Jews', and I think it is relevant to mention HIM. Your opinion here is SO topical (and maybe even typical), because like so many people, you do not know how to make an argument. you LABEL the opinion I make without even making attempt to tell me why it is offensive to YOU, because you FEEL that Dershowitz is 'repugnant'? Well, sorry, but FEELINGS don't cut it here. REASONED arguments do. This is another example of the ad hominem here; and since I am a Black man I'm gonna alter the term to reflect that: 'ad hominem nigritudo'.

What gets me is how 'offensive' you find my argument. Why is it so offensive to you? Making a statement about Jews -- as a group --one that menitions NO stereotype whatsoever -- HOW is that offensive? There are certain things that identify Jews as Jews, and there are certain RELATIVELY homogenous opinions associated with Jews. I mentioned ONE of them. YOU, sir/miss, are NOT the majority. I think it's pretty accurate to speak with a broad brush here.

And, for the sake of clarity, my expression of CTK's argument, ,alling him self hating was something I hesitated to do -- for the record -- and that is why I laid out an argument BEFORE coming to that conclusion.

What bothers me about Inelson here is that by claiming my words as offensive, he/she is a step away of calling ME an ANTI-SEMITE(!) because after all, if I am talking about 'the Jews', and I say something "offensive" about the Jews, then ergo, I am an anti-semite; what a mother-effin irony! Folks, this is another case of Orwellian's bleating sheep: four legs good, two legs bad.

The problem Dershowitz might have with Inelson here is that he/she claims identity with no protocol, and he argues that what has happened to many members of the Jewish tribe is that they have been lulled by relatively tolerant contexts to relax their sense of selves, almost to the point that they claim a Jewish identity without any relationship to God, or to the protocol of being a matrilineal descendant of a Jewish woman, as well as the accompanying ethos. I felt comfortable saying 'the Jews' because it is my sense that there is a CULTURE that binds them, that ensures that they live by an ethos that protects the interests of their people, and I am quite admiring of that. I get the sense that Inelson is living under the illusion/delusion that he/she is an 'individual' which folks, like race, is another social construct -- and a relatively new one at that. Individuality is a wonderful concept, but in my opinion where it threatens cultural identity, then by it's nature it forces either the culture to change, or the individual to conform their idyosyncracy (sorry for the spelling) under the characteristics which identifies 'the group'. Essentially all cultural groups have an ETHOS.

Case in point: Not many Jews out there marrying the descendant s of Nazis;
-- I'm just sayin' -- Yet I am NOT surprised that CTK's partner is a white woman. It falls in tandem with Dershowitz's self-hating thesis where an individual 'betrays' the ethos of the group and marry's/ couples with an 'outsider'. -- Jus' sayin'...

Lastly Inelson, you are obviously new to the conversation. I have made it quite clear that these are MY opinions, yet anecdotally (and accurately), my opinions mirror those of the large swath of Black people in this neighborhood, whether you like it or not. I have said here -- quite recently that it is Buddhist to say that there is no such thing as THE truth, there is YOUR truth and MY truth, and what is expressed here whether I like it or not is all a part of the big picture. What I have found offensive is that in attempt to present the BLACK truth, it is constantly devalued and demeaned and labelled as 'offensive', 'angry', 'rage', and 'misguided'. And that there exists such a thing as a 'Black perspective 'about spitting (or anything!) is somehow specious. It DOES exist however. But this stance about a Black view on things isn't new. Afrocentricity was shot down via academia, 'Black history' as a subject has been shot down; shucks, civil rights as an ideology expressing the interests of BLACK PEOPLE was shot down. And who did the shooting down? Those individuals whose interests were not in the interests of Blackvolk. I mean I'm jus' sayin'....

Inelson, for the record, I will not be responding to ANYTHING about the Jews in this or likely any future thread. 'You guys' are too powerful: 'you' own the media, the stores, and likely the building in which I reside; also I really don't want the Mossad to come in through the windows in a silent Black helicopter and encourage me to die of natural causes. Shalom.... ; )

whynot_31 wrote: So, a while ago we started on a utopian tangent that was something along the lines of:

"How are we going to address the social problems that plague Crown Heights?"

...we then covered the history that caused these problems, and referred folks who needed more information to the library.

I'd like to hope we are now at the point that we can built the coalition of people that will be required to truly make a difference.