Fidel's response to Obama speech at the Cuban American National Foundation‏ - Page 2

Vubundada_Kandaba · (#26 (**permalink**))

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gmahogany777

I'm not a big MLk fan either, but I realize the implications of Obama not paying respects to him for fear of turning off white folks. I realize what it means about US and our "leprosy like" status,lol, and our acceptance of that status. Like you, I also realize that such tactics don't portend well for anything being done that will benefit us when something as innocuous as paying respect to a safe, responsible Negro leader is too much for white folks and some Negroes, to handle,lol.

Have you ever heard of the phrase "Better safe than sorry". Let us the "Kool- Aid" drinking Negroes do our thing.

When he fail then maybe you "Militant Black Panther, Shaka Zulu type Negroes"can come in and wreck havoc and maybe you guys can get us somewhere.

Mezmerized · (#27 (**permalink**))

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vubundada_Kandaba

Have you ever heard of the phrase "Better safe than sorry". Let us the "Kool- Aid" drinking Negroes do our thing.

When he fail then maybe you "Militant Black Panther, Shaka Zulu type Negroes"can come in and wreck havoc and maybe you guys can get us somewhere.

LOL...very funny, but history can prove us right...because throughout history, any group of people that has ever acheived any meaningfull, revolutionary change had to be ruthless and less apologetic of their cause!

So your "kool-aid", laid back tactic has never really acheived anything but illusions.....ever heard of Kasavubu of Congo? The Kool Aid, sellout refused to forgive Lumumba because he dissed the Belgians the day of the so called Independence......his need to play "smiling tactic" lead him to be a traitor to his own people, eventually leading to both their demise.

So my friend, i'd rather die with some pride.....at least.

Vubundada_Kandaba · (#28 (**permalink**))

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mezmerized

LOL...very funny, but history can prove us right...because throughout history, any group of people that has ever acheived any meaningfull, revolutionary change had to be ruthless and less apologetic of their cause! So your "kool-aid", laid back tactic has never really acheived anything but illusions.....ever heard of Kasavubu of Congo? The Kool Aid, sellout refused to forgive Lumumba because he dissed the Belgians the day of the so called Independence......his need to play "smiling tactic" lead him to be a traitor to his own people, eventually leading to both their demise. So my friend, i'd rather die with some pride.....at least.

Actually Kool-Aid Drinking can get you somewhere. "Martin Luther King" and "Mohatma Ghandi" were Kool-Aid Drinkers according to you Folks. Both were able to achieve their objectives using so an so called "Kool-Aid Drinking" methods but that was not good enough according the "Shaka Zulu Miltant Negroes". The list is long, Kwame Nkrumah, Jomo Kenyatta, the ANC and almost all African Resistance were Kool-Aid drinkers per your definition because they all played it safe. You launch a resistance and launch violence against the system, but at always thinking ahead. The Kamakazee Suicidal Methods you guys employ won't lead us anywhere. The Black Panthers are nowhere today and never really accomplished much. Playing it safe does not mean abandoning violence and resistance, not at all. Playing it safe means calculating and using all availabe means of defence starting from Diplomacy and Tactics and if that don't work then employing others including violence. Yours and Gmahogany Suicidal and Reckless way of doing things when there are other methods to go around the system causes nothing but misery at the end.

I have seen the effects of Reckless Commanders who go to battle with no plan to withdraw. They say he who fights and withdraws when the tide turns will live to fight another day and will win the battle the next time around because he/she would have learnt from his/her mistakes.

The day will come when we lead after exhausting all available means. When that day come and it happens that VK is the Commanding officer leading the assault on the beach then what I will do upon landing is burn all the boats that brought us to shore. Then I will point to my Men and tell them that there are two ways from here on out. (1) Fight and loose and be killed or captured. (2) Fight and decimate the enemy and capture them. Till then, we play it safe because there ain't no reason to act like "wild Negroes high on weed, shooting randomly and widely without aim".

Incase you guys are not aware, the Country of Denmark of 4 million people is about to be over-run by Moslem Immigrants whose birth-rate is increasing beyond imagination. 15 years ago there were 75,000 Moslem Immigrants from Iraq and today they are about 250,000. It is projected that they would be a majority in the year 2040 and then Denmark might be an Islamic Country in Europe. That is a tactic to take over gradually. But I assume if it was upto you Folks "The No-Tactics and No Thinking Militants who act like they are high on weed"

your plan would be outright invasion, leading to your capture like the Cubans who attempted to invade Cuba at the bay of pigs, 40 years ago. But Obama is not a Messiah of Black Folks, we just want to see him in the white House wether he turns to be abig dis-appointment or not. Atleast we would have put a Black Person in the office and that would be enough to motivate Black Folks the World Over that they too can achieve.

Gmahogany777 · (#29 (**permalink**))

VK, you really need to go do your homework before you try to engage in this topic. First of all, the idea that any meaningful changes ever occurred for Black folks as it relates to white oppression(or ANY people who are being oppressed for that matter) because we were NICE enough is absurd, As Mez already stated. Only in the mind of no self esteem having, cowardly Negroes is this even plausible, much less, desirable,lol. Don’t allow your obsession with Obama to make you sound foolish and throw out all of your good sense and self respect on other matters. I know you don’t really subscribe to this view, you just feel you have to, to defend your support of Obama. That’s why it’s good to be consistent in one’s views. Then one doesn’t find oneself having to defend/support ish that KNOWS one normally would not be defending/supporting/promoting……….

Before Malcolm came on the scene, King was viewed and treated as a trouble making Communist by both white people AND some Negroes. Some folks NEVER stopped viewing King that, way,btw. Including Negroes like Carl Rowan who worked for the US information agency. Don’t get it twisted. It was Malcolm’s appearance with his ALTERNATIVE, let us say, way of looking at things, that caused King to be viewed as THE SAFE,MODERATE, RESPONSIBLE NEGRO leader, and more PLEASANT, LESS DISTURBING OPTION AND ALTERNATIVE……. Without that, he would have been ignored and dismissed. Trust and believe. There are threads on this Board where both Fred Black and I laid out and documented the ways that ARMED RESITANCE both the threat of it and the actual use of it were used in and for the benefit of the Civil Rights movement, EVEN BY MLK. When I find the thread I’ll refer you to it, so you can go brush up on your knowledge of the matter and stop regurgitating white and uncle Tom, fantasy media spin of that movement. King used the threat of Malcolm’s way as a way to get whites to see that what he was asking for wasn’t that much. Good cop/bad cop strategy some would call it.

Even the most King loving pacifist scholars of the Civil Rights movement will tell you that from 1965 on, it was the Malcolm X /Black panther, riot mindset that ruled and ultimately got a lot of the results we got. King’s way was seen as obsolete by that time. That is why is popularity was at it’s lowest point at the time he was killed. Both Blacks and whites had cooled on him. After he died, folks started getting selective amnesia as folks are prone to do.

President Johnson stated in his writings that it was the Watt’s riots of 65 that largely convinced him to pass the legislation that he did, that year. That had Malcolm’s fingerprints all over it, eventhough he had been killed in February of that year. He predicted that America’s cities would be on fire, because the Kool Aid sippers were misleading and mid advising white folks(and often were clueless themselves mainly because they were more interested in appeasing white folks than paying attention to their own community), the level of rage and despair that existed among Black folks. At one point in time in 68, there were riots in 60 American cities. This idea that all Negroes had to do to get their rights, or get political/economic/social access, was say PRETYY PLEASE is absolute nonsense and I think you KNOW that……..

Vubundada_Kandaba · (#30 (**permalink**))

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gmahogany777

VK, you really need to go do your homework before you try to engage in this topic.

HomeWork!!! you give me plenty of jokes. I am making fun of the "Kool-Aid" drinkers descriptions you guys always push. Ain't no need to do any homework because I know enough without Homeworks and I ain't no "Un-Educated Fool" get that straight. I am just not one to keep pounding the same issue day in and day out page, after page. I discuss and then I move on, no need to waste time on the same issue for me. Got other things to worry about then spend obsessing to push a moot point. If anyone here sounds foolish then probably its you because I have consistently said that I want to see a Black Man in the White House wether they eventually deliver or not is not the issue, the issue is for a BlackMan to be the President and also help inspire other Blacks in the Diaspora and the African Continent. I think you must confuse me with some people around here. I gave you examples of plenty of African Leaders who got support and praised like the second coming of Jesus and how these leaders ended up dis-appointing eventually. I think you don't have a very good memory, otherwise you won't be making such foolish inuendos such as "obsession with Obama". Go back to the various threads we have discussed here and quit acting like you know more than anyone around here.

And it is you who needs to quit regurtitating the same old tired stories. I know about the civil rights struggle and who did what, the African Fight for Liberation both on the Continent and at home, so don't flatter yourself.

Vubundada_Kandaba · (#31 (**permalink**))

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gmahogany777

Before Malcolm came on the scene, King was viewed and treated as a trouble making Communist by both white people AND some Negroes. Some folks NEVER stopped viewing King that, way,btw. Including Negroes like Carl Rowan who worked for the US information agency. Don’t get it twisted. It was Malcolm’s appearance with his ALTERNATIVE, let us say, way of looking at things, that caused King to be viewed as THE SAFE,MODERATE, RESPONSIBLE NEGRO leader, and more PLEASANT, LESS DISTURBING OPTION AND ALTERNATIVE……. Without that, he would have been ignored and dismissed. Trust and believe. There are threads on this Board where both Fred Black and I laid out and documented the ways that ARMED RESITANCE both the threat of it and the actual use of it were used in and for the benefit of the Civil Rights movement, EVEN BY MLK. When I find the thread I’ll refer you to it, so you can go brush up on your knowledge of the matter and stop regurgitating white and uncle Tom, fantasy media spin of that movement. King used the threat of Malcolm’s way as a way to get whites to see that what he was asking for wasn’t that much. Good cop/bad cop strategy some would call it.

You must have been a really poor student, because were I to grade your response I would have given you a D minus. If only you will stop to read and not rush to type away at the keyboard like there is no tomorrow then maybe we can get somewhere with this debate. Just look at the above response and quote from You and ask yourself, what is the relavance of it to what I said. Where in this thread did I say that "Martin Luther King" was an Uncle Tom? What I said was that most likely to those Militant Black Folks, "MLK", Kwame Nkrumah, Jomo Kenyatta, Nelson Mandela, the ANC and 95% of the African Liberation Movements might have looked like "Kool- Aid Drinking Negroes", based on the way you guys like to use this word to describe people who think we should try another method. Do me a favour, try to read first and if I am not clear ask and I will be glad to answer. If you need glasses then I will be glad to send you some.

Gmahogany777 · (#32 (**permalink**))

First of all, VK, I DO know more than most people in this Beeyotch. The sooner you all come to terms with that, the better off you’ll be……j/k, kind of……..

The relevance of my comments on Malcolm and the Panthers and other more “militant” types goes to your comments that those types and their methods did not accomplish anything and that all of our gains came because of the “Kool Aid” sipping types and their kumbaya, let’s hold hands and tongue kiss, strategy. I’m telling YOU and anyone else who needs to be told, that this is NOT the case, and I can document it.

I never said that you said that King was a Tom. I didn’t say King was a Tom, and I don’t think that he was a Tom. He was however, by anyone’s estimation, very concerned with reconciliation with whites and saving America’s soul. That is why your earlier comments contrasting him with Malcolm, actually help make my case about Obama’s snubbing of the King event. Here was a Black man who had more love, understanding , forgiveness and goodwill in his heart for whites than any Black person in the history of these United States. In spite of that, in spite of that, in spite of that…..your man Obama and his campaign felt that to be seen paying respects to someone like this was TOO radical and off-putting for all of the “progressive”, “liberal”, “non racist” whites who SUPPOSEDLY make up his coalition.

King has been dead for 40 years, RIP, so common sense should tell us that Obama and company don’t REALLY believe that commemorating the life of a deceased Black man, who was all about peace and love his whole life, is either fear inducing to white folks or likely to turn them off. What he and his campaign in fact believe is that the very presence, essence and idea of Black folks in GENERAL, is troubling to white folks, that is why he found it necessary to duck and dodge ya’ll at every opportunity,(except in places where it benefited him, like SC and other heavily Black places in the South; ironically).

I for one already knew that was the case and that is why I objected to him skipping the SOTBU. You and others tried to make it like Tavis was being petty, Tavis doesn’t speak for us, Tavis doesn’t represent Black folks, Tavis is not deserving of any automatic respect, Obama doesn’t owe him anything, why does he need to show up to THAT event? Obama’s not showing up to that particular event is not indicative of anything about the larger Black collective, etc, etc. Fine, Obama, like the rest of us owes much to King and the many others who put their heads on the chopping block to allow us to be where we are as a people, so……………..let me see ya’ll excuse making Negroes throw KING under the bus, and tell us all about how Obama doesn’t need to show up to HIS event, lol, and as I predicted, some of ya’ll DID, lol.

I objected because I unlike the cultists in my midst, understood that it was not about TAVIS or KING, it was about him distancing himself from YA’LL’S Black assess, IN GENERAL. CAPICHE? Any questions, comments, concerns?????? It is clear to me that that is acceptable to most Black folks, that is fine for YA’LL. It’s not acceptable to me so don’t try to play this like Mez, myself or anyone else who advocates having a modicum of self respect in their dealings with others, is asking Obama to stand on tv with a Black Panther beret, and a machine gun, shouting power to the people. You and you cohorts try to PLAY IT like this is what we are asking for(that’s why you keep engaging in exaggeration and hyperbole), because you can’t admit to yourselves that you are willing to be disrespected for CRUMBS,(or not even), or if you think it will garner you some ethereal good feeling or “legitimacy in some other folks eyes.

One more thing, your characterization of those who advocated Black self defense like Malcolm, the Panther, and the Deacons of Self defense,(who went toe to toe with whites in the rural South and who got King’s ass out of a jam on an occasion or two, quiet as it’s kept), as wild eyed, weed smoking(doesn’t weed make you mellow?,anyhow), helter skelter adherents of random violence, is another untrue, slanderous, white and Uncle Tom media fueled description. I must find that thread for you. Simplistic descriptions of simple minded mischaracterizations of anyone who didn’t think Black folks should all just bend over and touch their toes as wild, non logical, non strategic “militants”, was and is the order of the day. So either we had to be doormats, or we had to be crazy, wild eyed N*ggers, on a suicide mission,lol. No middle ground, apparently……

Gmahogany777 · (#33 (**permalink**))

Don't have time to look for the thread I mentioned but here is some stuff I found about the Deacons for Defense. It's not an accident that the media did not report this stuff, and why they insist on selling ya'll the turn the other cheek version of the Movement. It helps keep ya'll in fear, and making asinine statements about what we CAN'T do, or what white folks WOULD have done if we had done thus and so. Meanwhile, there were those among us who already DID what fools are saying we could not have done. The powers that be depend on the fact that most people are ignorant to their OWN history. Just goes to show you that everybody can't be scared into taking endless amounts of sh*t off of you. In any group of people there going to be some mofos who CALL YOUR BLUFF,,lol.

Dustin Langley in Workers reviews Deacons for Defense:

"My name is Charles Sims. I'm 43 years old and I fear no man. Some of
you may leave disappointed. I'm a fighter, not a speechmaker."

These are the real words that the founder of Deacons of Defense used to
introduce himself in 1964 as he spoke about the struggle in Bogalusa,
La. These words, backed by weapons and the determination of the African
American community to defend themselves against racist attacks, won a
powerful victory over the status quo of the Jim Crow South in the mid-
1960s.

As part of a series of film showings honoring Black History Month, the
People's Video Network sponsored a Feb. 14 screening of the made-for-TV
movie "Deacons for Defense" in New York City. This film, starring Forest
Whitaker and Ossie Davis, chronicles the rise of the Deacons for Defense
and Justice, who stood up against the violence of the Klan.

The movie is set in Bogalusa in 1964. Relative to the population, the
KKK chapter in segregated Bogalusa was the biggest in the country.

Forest Whitaker stars as Marcus--a mill worker, World War II veteran and
church leader who is compelled by escalating Klan and police attacks to
organize his community to defend itself. Marcus is a composite
character, based on Charles Sims and other leaders of the Deacons.

The film clearly contrasts the futility of dogmatic non-violence, as
opposed to the effectiveness of armed self-defense, as a response to
Klan terror.

The two northern white organizers in the film are pacifists. "This
movement is nonviolent--that is the essence of the movement," says one
of them, played by Jonathan Silverman.

"Don't tell me about the essence of your summer vacation," responds
Marcus. "Alive is better."

'YOU HAVE TO MEET FORCE WITH FORCE'

In describing the actual struggle of his organization, Ernest Thomas,
the vice president and national organizer for the Deacons for Defense,
has stressed: "We teach that you have to meet force with force. The only
thing the Klan respects is force. It is also the only thing understood
by the others who battle Negroes, such as the John Birch Society, the
Minutemen, and the American Nazi Party."

Many of the Black men who took up arms with the Deacons were military
veterans who had fought overseas in the name of "democracy," but then
returned home to continued denial of basic civil rights and economic
opportunity.

Their determination to defend themselves put an end to night riding in
Bogalusa and inspired others to take up arms to defend themselves. By
1965, there were 62 chapters of the Deacons throughout the South, and
they helped to inspire the Black Panther Party for Self Defense.

In the discussion after the Feb. 14 film showing, one of the viewers,
Kedar Phillips, said, "What struck me was the fact that the Deacons of
Defense have been widely forgotten and don't get the recognition they
deserve."

Other viewers agreed, noting the need to learn the lessons from the
Deacons' struggle in these days of increasing violence against
immigrants and people of color, such as the recent killing of a young
Black man, Timothy Stansbury, by Brooklyn police.

Workers World Feb. 26, 2004: Deacons for Defense
(Copyright Workers World Service: Everyone is permitted to copy and
distribute verbatim copies of this document, but changing it is not
allowed. For more information contact Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY,
NY 10011)