How safe is Classon bet. Prospect St. Marks? (edited)
Comments
-
Dude, MHA eyes are hurting. We have veered from Classon Avenue down MHA Boulevard. I'm done. The stuff said here has been said before, by all sides. I don't think it serves a purpose to respond anymore. At least that is what I say right now. I am going to try real hard to cease and desist on this thread'; we are no longer even referring to the subject matter relevant to this thread.
-
good night.
I have a project that needs to be done in light returning from vacation, so I'll be up very late.
Whenever you watch media or look in the mirror, remember, no one represents you but you.
....many view this blog as a very powerful mirror that talks back. -
Goodnight to you too; good luck with your project; and thanks for the 'advice'. This blog is a very powerful mirror. it reflects and inflects mha every virtue, vice and flaw. And reveals to the world who I am more than anything ever has.
Peaceout -
The bill is in the mail.
-
wtf?
-
It's necessary. It's overdue.
-
MHA wrote: CTK stated, "Every time someone disagrees with you, it's not because your ideas are invalid; it's because there's something wrong with them. Everyone else, from wildly varying political and personal backgrounds puts said differences aside to conspire against MHA"
Point about the discussion being over is taken. Still though, while WhyFi was wrong to call you a pussy, you didn't do much better by assuming his stance on rape. Like you, many people don't agree with HOW you express your opinions (which at times gets compounded by the disagreements about said opinions), and how whenever you're dead wrong in your tactics you default to the victim role. It's enough of a problem that in my couple of years here you're the first poster to elicit such a universal reaction- not for your different opinions (alone anyway), but in the way you express them and shirk responsibility for using tactics you castigate others for using.
CTK, I am not clear on your post above; to correct/respond to you, whenever someone disagrees with me, it's NOT because their ideas are invalid, it's simply because they DISAGREE. Are you saying that when people disagree with me, that automatically means that I think that there is something WRONG with their ideas/opinions? In essence, I am not clear on what you are saying. Also, did you agree with Whyfi or disagree? You have stated both. I am not clear on your preceding arguments because you have not made that clear to me.
You say something is a 'pretty weak ad hominem'. Are you referring to Whyfi's characterising of me as a pussy? Does it matter how STRONG the ad hominem is? So it's okay to call someone a weak pejorative but not a strong one? Is't the presence of ad hominem whether weak or strong a breach of polite conversation and an invitation to name calling?
I think I am pretty clear: I think there is something wrong with HOW people choose to express that they disagree. It's cool to disagree. But you should say WHY. That's what RATIONAL discourse is all about. It's uncool to disagree, and call someone an epithet -- and that be your rationale. If anything that is what I pointed out. I disagreed with Whyfi and he calls me a pussy. I disagree with Flexichick and she implies that dick or asshole would better suffice; pussy does me too much justice.
You say that it's amusing to think that I think there is a 'conspiracy' against me. Here we are me, you and others, we are NOT talking about Classon Avenue being safe. Instead. one by one, all of you guys are having a public debate with me about something having NOTHING to do with the subject matter. Instead of PM-ing and dealing with it privately, you guys are accusing me of being paranoid, and a hypocrite, and I am responding to the contrary that I am neither. I have said repeatedly, 'hey, why are we even talking about this? The OP has left the building!' Yet here you and others are still making attempt to say, in essence, that MHA whines that he's being ganged up on. Dude, why are we even having this discussion? We have no moved away from Classon Ave, away from Whyfi. We are no on MHA Avenue talking about MHA. I wouldn't call it a conspiracy. I would just say that you are using this forum as a means of indulging in some sort of critique of MHA. Move on. Argument done. OP doesn't give a damn anymore. Why are we talking about MHA now? Believe me, I am having a great laugh about this as well.
Back to my point you weren't clear on- time and time again, when people disagreed with your opinions you defaulted to the assumption that they disagreed because of how you expressed them, or because they were in cahoots with someone else you disagreed with, or some other reason besides the fact that they simply didn't agree with what you had to say. Often times what you had to say simply wasn't true, or was offensive, or was reactionary. Couple that with the fact that you simultaneously go tit for tat in trading barbs, and often are the one to take things to an ugly level (I got over but never forgot your comment about my girlfriend), while crying about how everyone should get along and not be so petty and it's clear to see why people get fed up... even in your new toned down "avatar"
IDK this all bores me now -
CTK, I still disagree with you; regarding the manner in which I responded to Whyfi. I will say this again: What I said extrapolated on HIS reasoning. You seem to think that my critiquing his response to my extrapolation is unnecessary because in your mind, what I did was wrong, and Whyfi doesn't cry foul, but when he responded to me by calling me a pussy. I cry foul. I disagree with you. I don't think that you can compare my response to his.
What's weird and contradictory is that in the'Spitting' thread, when I posted my observation about why people might spit, the almost universal reaction to my post was, 'so you are justifying the spitting', and I responded repeatedly I did not. Those comments were attempts at extrapolating on my statement; there lay your strawmen! Then, NOT ONE WORD FROM YOU.
This notion that I don't like a taste of my own medicine is inaccurate. I don't like being called names with nothing to back it up. I prefer a level of civilty -- especially when we are speaking relatively anonymously, and we are talking about things that are inclined to raise the rhetoric. Right now, we aren't even talking about anything except MHA! - which is just nuts! We are talking about HOW we are arguing/debating.
I made NO comment about YOUR girlfriend by the way, I made a comment about YOU dating a white woman, and my disagreeing in GENERAL with brothers who date white women, thinking that it reflects a certain psychological self hatred, and self contempt.
You say above, whenever I am 'dead wrong' I revert to the victim role. You have said this before, and I have said to you, 'CTK, you say that I am 'dead wrong' but you don't say provide evidence of that; you still haven't. I said to you earlier that you on one hand referred to AGREEING with Whyfi, and then in another post you DISAGREED with him. I pointed this out to you, corrected you in fact, and you have yet to admit it. NOT ONE WORD FROM YOU
Whenever I have PROVEN you wrong, you haven't even admitted the wrong. In the past, when we have debated about Black Nationalism, and Pan Africanism, and you have poo-pooed them I have asked you REPEATEDLY, "CTK, have you ever read anything by a Black Nationalist? Have you read Malcolm's biography? Have you read the Philosophy and Opinions of Marcus Garvey?" Your response to me was essentially, "Well, I am Ghanaian, how dare you tell me about Africa." To that I have asked you, "Okay CTK, have you read Kwame' NkruMHA's 'Conscienism', Jomo Kenyatta's, 'Facing Mount Kilamanjaro'? They are both fundamental texts, both written by Continental Africans. After all, Nkrumah was the Father of your nation." And you offered no response. NOT ONE WORD FROM YOU.
I admit when I am wrong. I listen to argument that says, "Here is where you are wrong MHA." All you say is, "your wrong", repeatedly. Dude, repetition proves nothing. It's just noise.
You that it is so typical of me to say essentially, 'Oh they are ganging up on me.' But here's the thing: In the past, when I make points about your argument, and then there is NOT ONE WORD FROM YOU, then someone else jumps in the mix -- on your behalf and when I counter them, then someone else jumps in the mix, and then when I counter them, someone else jumps in the mix -- and then you jump in. So there are like 5 or 6 people responding to something YOU say, and still -- NOT ONE WORD FROM YOU. So then I say, 'Dang, 5 or 6 people just tried to jump down my throat -- and then YOU jump in with -'Oh boy, there goes MHA complaining about being ganged up upon!' But dude, YOU have yet to respond to any of my questions about the argument that you are making! LOL. So yeah, I am gonna say I feel ganged up upon.
Your whole second paragraph is contradictory. You first say that I miss the point by critiquing responses to my writings; that I miss the point by saying people disagree with HOW I write, but then a few lines down what do you say? You say, "Often times what you had to say simply wasn't true, or was offensive, or was reactionary. Couple that with the fact that you simultaneously go tit for tat in trading barbs, and often are the one to take things to an ugly level..." So here YOU are characterising my responses. You are saying that they are ugly, offensive, and untrue. I ask you CTK. WHAT did I say that was ugly? What did I say that was offensive? what did I say that was reactionary? These are your characterisations of what I have said. You are not illustrating what you find ugly in my argument; what you find reactionary, and what you find untrue. Therefroe if you don't PROVE your conclusions, I am going to say - 'YO -- check out the ad hominem bullshiesse in respond to my points. Homeboy isn't responding to my points, he's CHARACTERISING it. If he can convince the reader that what I say is reprehensible, then they are less inclined to actually use rational thought to read what I write."
And this isn't new. There was a time when you would open up the paper and see, "Black Provocateur Malcom X Speaks at 125th Street" as a headline in the newspaper. So, even before the article has begun, the whiteman done told the audience HOW they are supposed to FEEL about Malcolm. ANd this is what you do my brother, when you say without proof that I say ugly, reactionary, offensive things. And the more you say it, the more people will just think such is the case -- even though you haven't proven the point. As I have said over and over, this does not encourage intelligent conversation. It encourages the whimsy of the herd. Code words like ugly, reactionary, offensive --those are bullshit words that encourages people not to think about what they read.
So what am I to do if I don't agree with you? What alternative do I have. Should I accept on face value that just because YOU say what MHA said offended me, then there is credence in your taking offense? Show me the REASON why you are offended, or why you allege I have lied here! You HAVE NOT done that. You have NEVER done it.
So here we are, YOU and I talking about nothing except each other. Two brothers disagreeing with each other, and I will say to you AGAIN, this ain't cool. And AGAIN, I will say that the whitefolks love to see this -- believe me. All of this crap can be PM-ed. I will raise the analogy again: We are akin to the two black boys who fight blindfolded on the rug in the novel 'Invisible Man'. Here we are at each other's throats over NOTHING. Not a goddamned thing. I ask you earnestly, PLEASE, let's have this debate via PM. Let's keep it PRIVATE. How about it? -
MHA wrote:
Don't all racists feel the way you do? The race itself is interchangeable.
I made NO comment about YOUR girlfriend by the way, I made a comment about YOU dating a white woman, and my disagreeing in GENERAL with brothers who date white women, thinking that it reflects a certain psychological self hatred, and self contempt.
Ironically, this type of view generally reflects more on the self-hatred and contempt of the writer than those they tend to criticize. -
MHA wrote: CTK, I still disagree with you; regarding the manner in which I responded to Whyfi. I will say this again: What I said extrapolated on HIS reasoning. You seem to think that my critiquing his response to my extrapolation is unnecessary because in your mind, what I did was wrong, and Whyfi doesn't cry foul, but when he responded to me by calling me a pussy. I cry foul. I disagree with you. I don't think that you can compare my response to his.
Taking things to PM is pointless, because eventually things all go back to how they were before the "peace treaty". Honestly the whole thing is pretty tired. You are the board's TRUE representative of all black people (never mind the other black people who post here), you never inflame or push people's buttons, white folks love to see brothers tear each other down yadda yadda... best of luck man I give up
What's weird and contradictory is that in the'Spitting' thread, when I posted my observation about why people might spit, the almost universal reaction to my post was, 'so you are justifying the spitting', and I responded repeatedly I did not. Those comments were attempts at extrapolating on my statement; there lay your strawmen! Then, NOT ONE WORD FROM YOU.
This notion that I don't like a taste of my own medicine is inaccurate. I don't like being called names with nothing to back it up. I prefer a level of civilty -- especially when we are speaking relatively anonymously, and we are talking about things that are inclined to raise the rhetoric. Right now, we aren't even talking about anything except MHA! - which is just nuts! We are talking about HOW we are arguing/debating.
I made NO comment about YOUR girlfriend by the way, I made a comment about YOU dating a white woman, and my disagreeing in GENERAL with brothers who date white women, thinking that it reflects a certain psychological self hatred, and self contempt.
You say above, whenever I am 'dead wrong' I revert to the victim role. You have said this before, and I have said to you, 'CTK, you say that I am 'dead wrong' but you don't say provide evidence of that; you still haven't. I said to you earlier that you on one hand referred to AGREEING with Whyfi, and then in another post you DISAGREED with him. I pointed this out to you, corrected you in fact, and you have yet to admit it. NOT ONE WORD FROM YOU
Whenever I have PROVEN you wrong, you haven't even admitted the wrong. In the past, when we have debated about Black Nationalism, and Pan Africanism, and you have poo-pooed them I have asked you REPEATEDLY, "CTK, have you ever read anything by a Black Nationalist? Have you read Malcolm's biography? Have you read the Philosophy and Opinions of Marcus Garvey?" Your response to me was essentially, "Well, I am Ghanaian, how dare you tell me about Africa." To that I have asked you, "Okay CTK, have you read Kwame' NkruMHA's 'Conscienism', Jomo Kenyatta's, 'Facing Mount Kilamanjaro'? They are both fundamental texts, both written by Continental Africans. After all, Nkrumah was the Father of your nation." And you offered no response. NOT ONE WORD FROM YOU.
I admit when I am wrong. I listen to argument that says, "Here is where you are wrong MHA." All you say is, "your wrong", repeatedly. Dude, repetition proves nothing. It's just noise.
You that it is so typical of me to say essentially, 'Oh they are ganging up on me.' But here's the thing: In the past, when I make points about your argument, and then there is NOT ONE WORD FROM YOU, then someone else jumps in the mix -- on your behalf and when I counter them, then someone else jumps in the mix, and then when I counter them, someone else jumps in the mix -- and then you jump in. So there are like 5 or 6 people responding to something YOU say, and still -- NOT ONE WORD FROM YOU. So then I say, 'Dang, 5 or 6 people just tried to jump down my throat -- and then YOU jump in with -'Oh boy, there goes MHA complaining about being ganged up upon!' But dude, YOU have yet to respond to any of my questions about the argument that you are making! LOL. So yeah, I am gonna say I feel ganged up upon.
Your whole second paragraph is contradictory. You first say that I miss the point by critiquing responses to my writings; that I miss the point by saying people disagree with HOW I write, but then a few lines down what do you say? You say, "Often times what you had to say simply wasn't true, or was offensive, or was reactionary. Couple that with the fact that you simultaneously go tit for tat in trading barbs, and often are the one to take things to an ugly level..." So here YOU are characterising my responses. You are saying that they are ugly, offensive, and untrue. I ask you CTK. WHAT did I say that was ugly? What did I say that was offensive? what did I say that was reactionary? These are your characterisations of what I have said. You are not illustrating what you find ugly in my argument; what you find reactionary, and what you find untrue. Therefroe if you don't PROVE your conclusions, I am going to say - 'YO -- check out the ad hominem bullshiesse in respond to my points. Homeboy isn't responding to my points, he's CHARACTERISING it. If he can convince the reader that what I say is reprehensible, then they are less inclined to actually use rational thought to read what I write."
And this isn't new. There was a time when you would open up the paper and see, "Black Provocateur Malcom X Speaks at 125th Street" as a headline in the newspaper. So, even before the article has begun, the whiteman done told the audience HOW they are supposed to FEEL about Malcolm. ANd this is what you do my brother, when you say without proof that I say ugly, reactionary, offensive things. And the more you say it, the more people will just think such is the case -- even though you haven't proven the point. As I have said over and over, this does not encourage intelligent conversation. It encourages the whimsy of the herd. Code words like ugly, reactionary, offensive --those are bullshit words that encourages people not to think about what they read.
So what am I to do if I don't agree with you? What alternative do I have. Should I accept on face value that just because YOU say what MHA said offended me, then there is credence in your taking offense? Show me the REASON why you are offended, or why you allege I have lied here! You HAVE NOT done that. You have NEVER done it.
So here we are, YOU and I talking about nothing except each other. Two brothers disagreeing with each other, and I will say to you AGAIN, this ain't cool. And AGAIN, I will say that the whitefolks love to see this -- believe me. All of this crap can be PM-ed. I will raise the analogy again: We are akin to the two black boys who fight blindfolded on the rug in the novel 'Invisible Man'. Here we are at each other's throats over NOTHING. Not a goddamned thing. I ask you earnestly, PLEASE, let's have this debate via PM. Let's keep it PRIVATE. How about it? -
Everything written somehow pertains to me and requires a comment by me. (sarcasm)....
I resent that.
....I enjoy seeing people make fools of themselves, regardless of their race.
CTK, please note that I perceive only one person as acting like a fool in this instance. You weren't the one. -
I think CTK is cool...
[no, not being a smartass - seems like a perfectly reasonable and generally positive person - good things] -
oh my lolz
-
Now we are all WAY off base. If anything DISCUSSING Classon Avenue is more hazardous than actually LIVING on it.
Eastbloc, I will take the bait: I do resent being called a racist. I don't think that I am. I don't think white people are any other race construct, or ethnic group are any better or worse than anyone else. The reason I take issue with Brothers who date white women has a great deal to do with the relationship between Black people and european notions of beauty. It has nothing to do with hatred or any notins of genetic superiority. If anything, I should have better phrased what I said about Black men and white women in relaitonships. It would have been better to say I hold them suspect -- given the history between whites and blacks, and given the predominant culture that exalts white femininity and exoticises black sexuality. White constructs of beauty are founded on racist notions and often Black men are susceptible to them. There is a great deal of literature about this, and I will not reiterate any more it here. Ask any of you Black female friends what they think of that issue. I am sure they will gladly fill you in.
CTK, when you post my whole thread, and then you (again!) DON'T respond to ANY of the points raised, it makes me wonder, 'Why post the thread in the first place?' Glad that you're giving up buddy.
Whynot_31, thank you again for your commentary. I see I have made a fool of myself now. Glad I can reinforce your sentiment of me. When you call me a fool, you also call others fools too; just remember that. And, like so many others, you opine without without stating why. I guess we should just take your word for it: MHA is a fool because Whynot_31 thinks so.
Whyfi -- believe it or not, I think CTK is cool too.
CTK, I am not the representative of all Black people -- believe me. Definitely not you. I disagree with you. I do push people's buttons; never denied that; and yeah, I do inflame; believe me, you guys inflame as well. Being called a racist isn't fun, believe me. But seriously dude, whitefolks LOVE to see brothers go at it. Check out history man. The newspapers constantly pitted Garvey against Dubois, Malcom against Martin, and look! -- Obama against that dude in charge of the Grand Old Party - Steele. What, you thought that was an accident? -
MHA wrote: Now we are all WAY off base. If anything DISCUSSING Classon Avenue is more hazardous than actually LIVING on it.
I have a number of black female friends, and they tend to date who they fancy. It's not based on their skin color or that of their partners.
Eastbloc, I will take the bait: I do resent being called a racist. I don't think that I am. I don't think white people are any other race construct, or ethnic group are any better or worse than anyone else. The reason I take issue with Brothers who date white women has a great deal to do with the relationship between Black people and european notions of beauty. It has nothing to do with hatred or any notins of genetic superiority. If anything, I should have better phrased what I said about Black men and white women in relaitonships. It would have been better to say I hold them suspect -- given the history between whites and blacks, and given the predominant culture that exalts white femininity and exoticises black sexuality. White constructs of beauty are founded on racist notions and often Black men are susceptible to them. There is a great deal of literature about this, and I will not reiterate any more it here. Ask any of you Black female friends what they think of that issue. I am sure they will gladly fill you in.
The problem with your view is that it is anti-humanistic. Put to a simple cliche, what matters is on the inside. "Notions of beauty" that refer to external phenomena such as the color of the skin are petty.
Someone that explicitly _refuses_ to date someone of their own skin color may very well have some issues to work through, but no more so than someone who condemns another for dating someone of a different hue. It's the same disease.
Among the best legacies of the humanist, Marxist world-view I was raised with is this idea that anything positive (or negative) in the human experience is attributable not to the race, gender, creed, or nationality of the achiever but to the spirit of our species as a whole. Nationalism or any other sort of chauvinism remains repugnant to me. It's simply unjustifiable. -
Eastblock: +1
I'm on board with the humanist Marxist, but I think we can make this even simpler:
"hotness trumps all"
I no longer date, but when I did, that was my simple philosophy.
I found some people hot because:
1. They were wicked smart.
2. They were really funny
3. They were excellent to look at.
"European notions of beauty"? I dated her once. She scored 1 out of 3.
....everyone else I ever dated scored at least a 2 out of 3.
I won't bore you with my dating history on thread that is supposed to be about "Safety on Prospect and St. Marks" (?), but I will say that Brooklyn and Queens are filled with some incredibly attractive people.
....as a society, we've come along way.
...and we will date and marry anyone we choose, regardless of their gender, race, ethnicity ...or even whether some guy MHA "holds our motives suspect". -
eastbloc wrote:
eastbloc,
I have a number of black female friends, and they tend to date who they fancy. It's not based on their skin color or that of their partners.
The problem with your view is that it is anti-humanistic. Put to a simple cliche, what matters is on the inside. "Notions of beauty" that refer to external phenomena such as the color of the skin are petty.
I'd like to embrace your viewpoint (and, since I married someone of another race, to some degree, I already have), but, ultimately, I think your statement ignores the reality where we all live - and love.
The reality is that even though your black female friends may want to date whoever they fancy, not everyone wants to date them. If you search online personals (Yahoo!, for example), you'll see profiles of many men - yes, many! - who, when they check off their anticipated partner's racial category, choose white, asian, south asian, hispanic, mixed, in fact EVERYTHING offered EXCEPT black. It's really remarkable (I mean, you'd think they'd at least be discreet about it), but although I was shocked myself when I first saw this, I've seen it again and again over years. Out of my own interest, I conducted an informal survey and this choice ("everything but black") is found across racial categories (I even saw a black guy make it) and across the socioeconomic spectrum (it was more even likely as income levels rose). My point is that, as much as we may not want to believe it: in the sexual/romantic arena, black women are valued less - much less.
Given this reality, choosing to date black women exclusively could be a humanistic choice. -
Krowonhill,
You make it sound like dating a black woman is a form of Affirmative Action.
...clearly you did not attend the same grad school I did.
a lot of my classmates were hot. -
whynot_31 wrote: Krowonhill,
You make it sound like dating a black woman is a form of Affirmative Action.
...clearly you did not attend the same grad school I did.
Good grief - NO! I DON'T see dating black women as "affirmative action". It seemed that some posters were skeptical about MHA's claim that so many members of our society could hold common ideas about the beauty (or lack thereof) of women according to their race. This is an issue that is *commonly* talked about in the black community and amongst black women, so I was surprised to hear that black women had expressed to a poster that they felt they had their choice of men within dating scenarios. No, I don't believe that we need an institutional program to compensate these women for not being pursued by certain yo yos. I'm also certain that MHA does not need an incentive to date black women, because I know he finds them attractive.
I think the second comment is suggesting that I can't overthrow a historically-loaded term like "humanism" in a single line of a blog post, even if I wish I could. Certainly, smarter people than I have articulated the tension between humanism and the realities of race, but let me try to explain what I was trying to get at:
Despite the triumphant claims that we are now a post-racial society in the wake of Obama's election, pretending that race no longer matters and no longer influences the intimate details of our lives means that we will never reach the humanist's vision. Just because we don't talk about how race is institutionalized in our society, doesn't mean that it stops effecting our choices. I am not claiming to speak for MHA (who would need to? lol), but I do think that someone who actively recognizes, acknowledges, and seeks to change the ongoing legacy and power of racial ideas in our society does move us closer to a genuine humanistic ideal, even if their form of resistance doesn't fit within historical humanism. Again, my opinion, not MHA's stated intent.
Besides this, let me ask you: why did MHA's statement about dating only black women bother you so much? It hit enough of a nerve (even given his nationalist stance) that you consequently trotted out a chorus line of the women that you've dated to prove to us that race is not an issue for you, even though *no one asked you if it was*. Hey, me too! - before I dared to criticize a humanistic stance, I made sure that everyone knew that I was married to a man of a different race, i.e. really, I'm open-mided and egalitarian, just like everybody else! I suppose we have all been similarly acculturated within a humanistically-oriented educational system.
Well, it's been an interesting exchange. Clearly, we have trouble talking about race in America. I'm glad we can do it here, even if it's not easy. -
it's true, we have a long way to go. I won't claim that I didn't receive scorn for my former partners, and have no doubt that Krowonhill receives similar crap for hers (perhaps on a daily basis).
Why does it hit a nerve?
I think MHA's comments toward CTK are a step in the wrong direction.
Why can't CTK date whomever he wishes without receiving such judgement?
....taken at the extreme, it reminds me of all those black guys who got hung by the Klan in the south for daring to even talk to, or compliment a white woman.
I guess it also hits a nerve because it's unknown whether the avatar MHA has anything to do with MHA in real life. He could be simply acting out a fantasy role online to escape a restrained corporate employee existance. (A lot of us are).
....When I dream, I try to imagine a better world. On the other hand, it seems MHA's fantasy world would limit who Black men could date, and who Black women could date, because such freedoms would set back the mighty black nation he is striving to built.
Meanwhile, the "nation" I'm working to establish allows folks to date and marry whoever they choose.
Although it is clear MHA and I aren't likely to end up dating, we do seem to go through some weird periods of affection.
http://www.brooklynian.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=685245&sid=c7182d61ddef6ece22eef79b20a147a3
5/3/10 5:07 ESTMHA wrote:
As a result, I'd hate for him to end up as one of those confused guys I see as I arrive on the Brooklyn side of the the Brooklyn Bridge.
But seriously, your flyness makes you astute. Kudos! I award thee with coolness. Were I to introduce you to my friends, before the hackles rise I would say, "He's cool, he's cool..." This would alert them to your racial astuteness. Heck, you might even get a sister out of it --which brings to the fore fodder for another conversation: BLACK GIRL, WHITE MAN! WTF?!
You know the ones?
....they wear bow ties.
They try to sell you a pie
or the latest edition of The Final Call.
http://www.finalcall.com/
I can't say I've bothered with the pies, but whenever I read that newspaper, I always think two things to myself:
"I can't tell the difference between this edition and the prior edition."
and (as made famous by the United Negro College Fund):
"A mind is a terrible thing to waste".
....I guess I want MHA "the black nationalist" to find a way to remain himself, yet be able express himself in a way that people will listen.
...and in a way that will truly help the folks he genuinely seems to care about. -
MHA, my understanding of why you made an issue of me being with a white woman was to further erode my credibility while discussing why I don't agree with your views on race relations. I mean I am sure you believe what you believe, and I can't find the post, but I remember making some point about how ridiculous one of your assertions was, and rather than defend or explain your position, you dismissed it because of who I date. The quote was something like 'you date a white girl- nuff said.' as though that makes me less black or cognizant of black issues than you. I always pretty much explicitly lay out what issues I have with what you say, and I'm tired of repeating myself.
Cool The Kid wrote: MHA, play nice, you are flamebaiting via inflammatory strawmen.
Perhaps this was a bit cryptic. The point was, it wasn't right of you to put words in WhyFi's mouth, especially about a topic as sensitive as rape, just to make the same point I was making in a much more civil matter. We have seen you fly off the handle simply for being misunderstood, but here you are putting words in people's mouth.
And as far as how black women feel about dating outside their race, one of my close friends is a white dude who is probably going to marry the black girl he is with now, and has dated black women before. And black women with white men is almost a regular sight in neighborhoods like PS and PH. While I'm sure it's not a broad sweeping phenomenon, like my friend and his girlfriend, or like me and my girlfriend, I'm sure said relationships are built on something genuine just like any same race relationship.
The underlying point here being that PEOPLE ARE PEOPLE, and while it's important for people to know & internalize their own histories & respect those of others, I think it's counterproductive to look at people any other way than on an individual basis. MHA, the moment you say or think to take issue with 'brothers who date white women', you've marginalized a whole group of people and taken away their individual properties to reinforce your preconceived notions of what a black man is supposed to be and do. Instead of asking me what the deal is with me and my girl, you use that against me to attack my credibility on 'all things black'.
And you've generalized like that a lot to reinforce your viewpoints that are based wholly on things that have to be true of all the people in the groups you characterize. To say it's frustrating would be an understatement. Just as you hate being stereotyped and marginalized by your racist white bosses, the people you stereotype and marginalize (self hating Jews? brothers who date white women because they've fallen for the Eurocentric beauty okey doke + hate themselves? white women who leave their keys in their vespas and don't thank the people who return them because their white landlords told them the good samaritan was black? the fact that all black people hate to smile at white people as it instantly recalls the days of slavery and the systematic marginalization of black people? Etc. etc.) hate to be treated as such as well. Never mind the way such generalizations detract from discussions on race. Just as you are an INDIVIDUAL defined by your unique heritage, history, beliefs and experiences, so are the INDIVIDUALS in the groups you collectively (and unfairly most of the time) define. It's not right man. -
Homeowner - your link has some quirks. Here's one that works
http://www.brooklynian.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=689734
Maybe you could merge everything from Flexi's Sat Jul 24, 2010 9:13 am EST post forward into the above link? ...this way we could give this thread back to those who actually wonder what we think about the blocks being referenced by the OP, and how one should remain safe in the area.
Or, we could just change the title of this thread ....because Mama reports the OP is long gone.
A title like "Safety, Racism and inter-racial dating" would be excellent -
whynot_31 wrote: I think MHA's comments toward CTK are a step in the wrong direction.
I was once in the company of a beautiful black woman, walking down the street in Manhattan, when we were accosted by several black men. They began cursing her, stating that they would "cut her head off" for being with a white man, etc.
Why can't CTK date whomever he wishes without receiving such judgement?
....taken at the extreme, it reminds me of all those black guys who got hung by the Klan in the south for daring to even talk to, or compliment a white woman.
This is a minor variation on MHA attitude, with the main difference being that these gentlemen chose to act out their feelings rather than rationalize them. -
Eastbloc,
This is where you are wrong. This is not a variation of what I think. I actually don't hold harsh judgements for sisters who date white men, or men who are not of African descent. And, in the obverse, I would never say a harsh comment to a Black man who seeks love in the arms of a white woman. I know I couldn't do it, and I am amazed at those who do. This isn't a stance based on hate. It's a stance based on my history as a person of African descent, whose ancestors were brought to the so-called New World, who has a world view where he sees himself as the living end result of his ancestors struggles, whose ancestors are RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW, in the embodiment of MHA.
No doubt when I see a sister with a white dude I typically have a sadness in my heart, but, I understand why the have chosen to be with a non-Black man. It's my experience that most sisters would prefer the company of Black men, but unfortunately there are typically not enough brothers to go around, so sisters date 'outside' of their race. Now, of course this is not the explanation for all Black women, but in conversation with many, and what I've read on the issue (practically ANY issue of Essence Magazine), this is what most say: "Where are the brothers?"
This doesn't explain the men who made those horrible comments to your female friend as she walked with you.
The issue is a very controversial one amongst Blackfolks. Ideally, one should partner with whomever one wants. But, here is my point. To deny the power of the aesthetic, and to say that there is no tendency amongst Black people to strive for the European aesthetic is either a belief held out of ignorance, naivete', disengenuity, or worse, malfeasance. I am going to presume that because you are not Black, you are not fully aware of what I call here, 'the Black body politic'.
Essentially Eastbloc, whitefolks did a number on Black people, the repercussions of which still manifest themselves to this day. You want proof you say? All of the hair salons that you see in this community; all the sisters 'gettin' they hair done', which essentially usually means application of a lye-based chemical to their hair and scalp that has the sole purpose of weakening the keratin protein molecule (that's what makes sterotypical Africoid hair frizzy) so that the hair itself can be straight. Or, the actual SEWING of a wig that is woven into the braided hair of a Black woman; this is known as a weave. Or the skin bleach that so many sisters (and brothers) apply to their skin. Chris Rock's recent documentary, 'Good Hair' does a great job talking about this process, and some of the hows and whys of Black folks and their hair.
My true critique is with BROTHERS, Eastbloc. WE have fallen short. Whenever I see sisters with dudes who are not Black, I am inclined to think it's a decision made based on pragmatism. Being a Black man, I am privvy to a great deal that men say -- having had conversations with a number of Black men -- and I can tell you that a large number of us have issues with sisters who make no attempt to approximate the white ideal.
Also, again, there are SO few of us. Dude, HALF of all Black men in New York City are UNemployed... Dude, I could talk about this FOREVER. It's just not practical here to lay it all out. There are plenty of online sites dedicate to discussing this. Even books. Toni Morrison's 'The Bluest Eye' for instance, or even 'Kenneth Clarke's 'The Dark Ghetto.' In many respects this issue was already hashed when I made those comments to CTK so many moons ago on the 'Spitters' thread.
In another thread I was nearly accused of being anti-semitic, and I had to reply vigorously that such is not the case. That as a Pan-Africanist, I am quite enthralled with Zionism, and see it as inspiration actually. Though like many I have criticisms of Israel's foreign policy, specifically how the Palestinians are treated, yet I hold a heavy admiration for Jews, Judaism, Zionism, and Orthodox Jewish culture. One of the tenets of Orthodox Judaism, and collaterally, secular Jewish nationalists, is the preservation of their culture, and by extension, 'the race'. This can't be done if Jews marry outside of the group. I ask you Eastbloc, and others, if it's cool for Jews to advocate the marrying of other Jews, why is it racist for me as a Black man to say the same thing? Why the double standard?
And this has historically ALWAYS been the case. Whenever Black people have said, 'UP YOU MIGHTY RACE, YOU CAN ACCOMPLISH WHAT YOU WILL,' there are always detractors (who themselves practice their own brand of cultural orthodoxy) who state that the Black man does not have that right.
Eastbloc, and Whynot_31, the point here is you are not understanding of the Black experience, and the reasons why there would be animus toward inter-racial dating from Black men to Black women, and Black women to Black men. Not that I am condoning animus, but, do you understand the causes of it? For CTK to live his life, and to even respond to critiques of his dating a white woman without acknowledging these truths is to be either ignorant of them, naive about them, or disengenuous about the issue with those who UNDERSTANDABLY know less about it than he does, so there is no need for him to explain the pathos of VALUING white skin over black skin. Thus his constant need to position me as the wacky race-hater. I agree, he has the right to date whomever he wants to , but I also have a right to express a critique of his reasoning behind it. WHat you don't understand is that CTK's ignorance about his own people is akin to a Jew's ignorance of the 'sufferations' (to quote my Rasta brethren) their own people; that does not exist!
The beauty of living in America is having the right to have an opinion as long as what you believe doesn't affect the enumerated rights of others. I am a firm believer in these rights.
Lastly, as a Pan Africanist I am long accustomed to the notion that I am a card carrying hatemonger, which I am not. If I am a racist, then the Orthodox Jews are racists, then the indigenous peoples of this land vigilant about the perpetuation of their people, are racists, then the indigenous people in the Amazon are racists. The irony is that there are people who demean the efforts of others who have as their concern the perpetuation of 'their kind'. There is reason for pause considering them as they deem themselves to be everything that is anti-racist, but they see no value in a group of people who want to perpetuate their way of life. For the sake of detente, deconstructing CTK's inter-racial relationship runs the risk of fueling old antagonisms, and I don't think that is fair to him -- to do that publicly, if at all. -
MHA wrote:
Please change this to read: "Eastbloc, and Whynot_31, the point here is you are not understanding my worldview."
Eastbloc, and Whynot_31, the point here is you are not understanding the Black experience
As has been consistently pointed out to you, neither your experience or the views and opinions you have created as a result of that experience are universal to all Blacks.
On the subject of Jews:
Please note that I felt very welcomed when all of the members of Mrs. Whynot's Jewish, NYC family attend our wedding. Don't get me wrong, the vetting process from her and her family was intense ....but I passed!
Based on your post, I'll have to let her know tonight that she can no longer have a Muzuzah at the entrance to our apartment, keep a Kosher home, or go to services on holidays.
Based on your prior posts, I've already let her know that she can no longer support a Palestian state. (sarcasm)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mezuzah
I should probably remind you that I am Irish guy, who was even Catholic until around age 13. (I didn't like their stand on masterbation) -
I wasn't going to jump into this post after the moderator asked everyone to take it somewhere else, but I am really stupified by what is going on here.
whyfi,
You pulled a piece of MHA's quote (not even a sentence) and left it completely out of context. The original reads very differently. Classic propaganda technique!MHA wrote:
Then, you refute a Zionist position by bringing up your Jewish inlaws who are clearly so far from Zionist they don't care if their daughter marries a lapsed Catholic. Whether you intended to or not, your statement acts as if ALL people of the Jewish race would share the same belief system.
Eastbloc, and Whynot_31, the point here is you are not understanding of the Black experience, and the reasons why there would be animus toward inter-racial dating from Black men to Black women, and Black women to Black men. Not that I am condoning animus, but, do you understand the causes of it?
So you all disagree with MHA's black nationalist stance - ok, I get it. It sounds like you all agree that people should be free to date whoever they want, regardless of race. MHA said that he's fine with black women dating white men, and he's fine with KTC dating his white girlfriend, just that he questions what has gone into that choice of a partner. He also admitted that initially his statement about KTC's girlfriend came out confrontational, and he subsequently rephrased his position. MHA just wants to date black women himself, and he has submitted valid reasons why other black men might make the same choice. I do wonder wtf, then? Humanists have been disagreeing with nationalists for longer than we've been alive. -
You meant to address me, not whyfi. Also, the other poster is CTK, not KTC.
Back on topic -
MHA has long claimed that all Jews are Zionists and that Jews who do not hold such views are somehow disloyal to their race and religion. I certainly hold no such views of Jews. (and you'll likely get no discussion on the merits of Zionism from me....)
Speaking of which, I think my real critique is MHA's unquestioning adherance to the tenets of an ideology. He is right, I don't get it.
...however, he is wrong, in that his experience (and certainly his conclusions) are not universal among black folks.
For example, I'd have not have bothered replying if he had simply written:
...because it has no reference to some universal "black experience".
Eastbloc, and Whynot_31, the point here is you are not understanding, the reasons why there would be animus toward inter-racial dating from Black men to Black women, and Black women to Black men. Not that I am condoning animus, but, do you understand the causes of it?
Likewise, I only quoted the part on black experience because it was the only part that bothered me. (I do this under the belief that readers are smart enough to view the full context above, and out of a desire to keep my posts somewhat short and readable).
Anytime I see someone try to state that their perception allows them to speak on behalf of a large group of people, it tends to bug me. MHA claims he doesn't do it, so I now make it a point to show him everytime he does. (I may have found my much-needed hobby)
No propaganda techniques are needed or used here.
But let's not make this about MHA. Let's make it about me
. Longtime readers know that I love attention.....
In a way, I sort of envy MHA. Here is a guy who has found an ideology that (in his mind) can magically answer all of life's questions.
God I wish I could find something like that!
I had a brief period of infatuation with Marxism when I was 20, but it didn't last.
...I knew others who fell in love with Feminism, a cult leader, a famous writer, a religion, or an ideologue. After a while, they escaped too.
I would love to be able to find such a thing (perhaps as accessible as The Final Call newspaper) and just be able to buy into everything it said, and then genuinely dismiss people who do not believe what I spout as naive or as "simply not getting it".
http://www.finalcall.com/
Reading MHA's posts is almost like reading this letter over and over: http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/Minister_Louis_Farrakhan_9/article_7152.shtml
Dear World,
I would love to have a hero. I would love to view our society, and "life" as a more simplistic experience than it is .....but I can't.
....and I have a hard time believing that this is a weakness on my part.
Help me.
Sincerely,
Whynot_31
Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 40K All Categories
- 27.1K Neighborhoods
- 5.1K Crown Heights/Prospect Lefferts Gardens
- 7.1K Prospect Heights
- 2.3K Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, Bed-Stuy
- 8K Park Slope
- 549 Williamsburg, Greenpoint, Bushwick
- 442 Flatbush/Midwood/Ditmas Park
- 657 BoCoCa (Boerum Hill, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens)
- 151 Red Hook
- 104 Gowanus
- 304 Bay Ridge/Bensonhurst
- 130 Coney Island, Brighton Beach, Sheepshead Bay
- 270 Brooklyn Heights, DUMBO and Downtown
- 598 Windsor Terrace / Kensington
- 673 Greenwood Heights and Sunset Park
- 749 Brooklyn and Beyond
- 6.3K Stuff
- 86 Brooklyn Back When
- 1.2K Brooklyn Pets
- 257 Brooklyn Kids
- 241 Brooklyn Eats
- 51 Brooklyn Booze
- 3.6K The Lounge / Random Stuff
- 611 Brooklyn Politics
- 122 Brooklyn Sports and Fitness
- 111 Brooklyn Photos
- 339 Site Issues
- 8 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
- 6.2K Listings
- 1.1K APARTMENTS and REAL ESTATE
- 1.3K Sales Openings Events
- 2.3K The Classifieds