As our Jamaican fam would say. Seen? Seen.
.

Understood.

Welcome back Dogon!!!

I see your friends managed to scrap together your bail money! Great, that's what freinds are for!

I really am bored with you feelers and your 'black hippy' thinking and what up with this 'tag team' shite? Anyways....

You really need to go and do a bit of studying on African Cultures, the origin of "White" supremacy, and basic anthropology.

Nation of Islam has little to do with 'african culture'. How the hell is it african to wrap you wife up in a Hijab ????

No you and your kind are not smart Dogon, don't try lumping african culture with islam, one is ours(hippy stuff included) the other is not. I do understand that Islam and many coolies have benifited from such a 'partnership', but africa and its people have not. I dont come here to promote any type of islam so but the bull and do your own advertising!

P.S, Save your Islam worship for the mosque, this is a african forum!

This is what I mean. You have to post something relevant. How is the NOI a "Black" supremacist organization? Would it exist. . .without "White" supremacy? Would the word "Black" exist? Would even the word African exist?

I have to do fcuk all that I don't wish to do, just as you 'feelers' dont' have to be sane!

Black people as gods, white people as devils.....never mind whether you believe this or not, that sounds pretty 'supremacist' to me, but I guess you will just attempt to deflect that with...''It natural' or 'it's intuitive' whatever the hell that would mean!

Just because the NOI are 'reacting' to racism that already exists, does not mean that they are incapable of 'creating' a little of it.....whatever their motivation.

If you think that all we (africans) can do is sit around reacting to the world but not being pro active in it, then you have a pretty poor perception of what being 'african' is....mayby you should feed some swans and hug a tree? I'm sure that will energise your 'intuition'.

I could so go into details reguarding this, but debating with a 'feeler' is (i can only guess) pretty much like debating with a 'tree frog' all instinct no substance. You lot are just incapable of understanding anything that doesn't fit into your ''SAVE AFRICA.....STROKE A FLUFFY BUNNY WABBIT'' world view.

I understand that your islamic tutors/masters have ordered you to 'tie me up' in nonsense posts and I did play a long for a while, but it is no longer serves a purpose so stop trying to engage me in circular posting!

I don't consider all this a waste of my time because I have learned time spent conversing with 'feelers' is wasted time.

I will adapt!

Now Dogon, you haven't answer my original question, and that's cool, I'll leave it alone, just do me a favour. STOP ADDRESSING ME!

If the other villagers keep seeing us chatting, they are going to start thinking we are friends! That will not do much for my 'village street cred '.

So please, step away from me and go and stand over there.......NO..... not there....THERE, by the village well.

I hear that where all the village idiots hang out.

Thank You

"Racism is the belief in the supremacy of a race of people. It has nothing to do with hate".




I have had this conversation on more than one occasion, and it seems to be a concept that some cannot, (or they refuse to), understand:

BLACK PEOPLE CANNOT BE RACIST! - not against whites at any rate.

AND

WHITE PEOPLE CANNOT EXPERIENCE RACISM!

BECAUSE

THERE IS NO 'STRUCTURAL' SYSTEM IN PLACE, CONSTRUCTED, AND/OR OPERATED BY BLACK PEOPLE, DESIGNED TO PLACE BLACKS AT AN ADVANTAGE, AND WHITES AT A DISADVANTAGE (across a whole host of areas), MERELY BY VIRTUE OF THE COLOR OF THEIR SKIN!

BLACK PEOPLE CAN INDEED BE "PREJUDICE" AGAINST WHITES AND INDEED WHITE PEOPLE CAN 'SUFFER' FROM AND EXPERIENCE PREJUDICE - BUT RACISM AND PREJUDICE ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS! Though many tend to confuse the latter with the former. Especially when accusing blacks of being 'JUST AS RACIST AS WHITES'.

Respect

[quote]Please don't patronise me because your argument makes no sense. It cannot exist and not exist and you have no bearing on whether it does or doesn't exist. The natural world exists and we label it as we percieve it. Should we label it differently, it doesn't change the fact that it is there to be percieved, hence the reason for you not being able to get over the fact that it's effects will still be there, because it still exists.

That does not prove subjectivity. All you've just shown is that mass plays a part in gravity's effects, not that it is subjective.

Just because we do not know where it is and it's full nature, does not mean it does not exist. You would understand if you were capable of separating your reality from reality. "Abstract" thought seems to be leading you to muddle them together and confuse yourself.

No it would be spit on your face due to the phenomenon we call gravity. If you did not know or did not aknowledge gravity, the spit would still be on your face.


Where have you done anything more than percieve here? You are interacting with my reality only as far as you can percieve it as I am interacting with your reality only as far as I can percieve it. Nothing has been created, only percieved. I think you'll find that even your thoughts are "created" from what you have percieved.

No, you could say that. They firmly fit my definition of evil and are as far from nature as i can think of. That which is far from natural reality is not something that can be considered merely different. But if you don't understand that, good for you. You should try to stop taking elements from an entire being and analysing it outside of it's context as part of an entire entity. Then maybe you'll understand what I'm saying to you.


I do not have a problem with you using it because it is part of the english language, but because the definition of the word that you have used and the one that is widely accepted in the English language both are inadequate to explain our Ancestors though, because they ignore the natural world and our ancestors spiritual element. Therefore I consider it a misnomer. Someone else could say that they did not think intuitively, but they haven't, because it is the closest definition to how our ancestors thought and many texts in English that explain our ancestors though, explain it using this terminology.


This is what i mean about the limitations of Abstract thought. You assume something is nonexistent because you cannot see it with your two eyes, which reduces the creation of our creator, to whatever a human can see. I have never see what you would call earth's atmosphere either, through various means I can tell you it exists and is constituted of certain things. I can attribute laws of nature in relation to the atmosphere of this planet. I can then manipulate matter to "create" something that works on these principles. If it works correctly I can say the atmosphere is existent because what i have created works as the atmosphere does. This is a representation of what our ancestors knew as one of the universal laws. "as is above, so is below". It is how our ancestors knew of stars so far away without ever seeing them, but caucasians only knew of when they saw them (about three years ago). Knowledge of nature brings knowledge of reality. Abstract thought brings you only what you percieved.

You are welcome to western thought, and I myself was brought up here and have that cultural reference. However I believe my knowledge and understanding of the world has been enriched by having another cultural perspective.

Nobody said you shouldn't think abstractly. I said our ancestors didn't and I also don't believe abstract thought, should be placed above intuition. You're the one who is minimizing intuition to feeling. You have yet to understand what is meant when I say intuition which is why you believe it to ba a dangerous notion. I have already said that intuition is a precursor to thinking. abstract thought is a western notion of advanced logical thinking. Because there is no intuition involved in the thinking, it ignores the natural more often than not. That is not how our ancestors thought. They were intuitive thinkers, they though within an understanding and perception of the natural and the spiritual. This involves advanced logical thought but within certain confines. This is the best way I can explain the difference to you. If you cannot get this, I can't explain it to you without you having first gained some spiritual thought.

My response to you does not lie in the abstract. I am an intuitive thinker. When you are able to understand what an intuitive thinker actually is, you will understand that it does not take the abstract to have this discussion. See my definition above.

Did I mention I understand a great deal of psychology. What you described with the cat is Classical Conditioning. Nowhere does it say that one does not understand after one is conditioned, in fact conditioning is a part of the behaviourist perspective which believes that understanding comes through conditioning. Conditioned response does not negate understanding.

First of all, very little is known about animal communication outside of humans, which means very little is known about their mental capacity. Most of the studies on animals other than humans, are based on the assumption that humans have a higher level of understanding, without having proof to that effect. You should do some research on "animal" psychology, it would shed some light on the arrogance of humanity. If you're going to use the arguments of behaviourists, you will have to first realise that the idea is that humans think too much of themselves and that they learn in the same way every animal does. Conditioning is no different for animals than it is for humans, except for the fact that humans believe their conditioning leads to understanding and assume an animals doesn't.

Good, usually I get older people lashing out because I am younger than they are and speaking on subjects they speak on. I'm glad that you aren't that insecure. By the way, spiritual feeler in no way describes me. I am an intuitive, spiritual thinker, which in no way separates me from being a practicle thinker. I am first and foremost a realist (which you may consider a practicle thinker), which a intuitive, spiritual thinker is. My thoughts are based upon reality, which is the same as being based upon nature. If abstract thought is not based upon nature (which it looks like it is not) then it is not based upon reality and cannot be practicle unless it is based upon what humanity dictates, which is closer to ignorance than it is to reality.

All of the things you have stated are natural, not nature. Natural things are aspects of the greater nature. It is not that language is natural, it is that it is natural for a human to communicate that which it percieves. Mathmatics is a language which in it's complex form communicates that which is percieved within nature by humans. It communicates these things to those who understand the language. There is a show called Numb3rs. You should check out what it's about. You will understand why I say mathmatics is natural to humans. BTW did I mention that before it is known that humans spoke, it is known that they used mathmatics, complex mathmatics at that. They used it to represent nature. Is this not language?

Watch the very first episode of Numb3rs if you can.

Mathmatics was first used for humans (Africans) to create agriculture. Hunter Gatherers think very little and are more like the very animals you say we are not. The Africans who survived using argiculture (which meant using mathmatics) were a lot more like the thinkers (solely) you want humans to be.

Later on today I will start a thread in the philosophy corner to finish of my discussion with RLB and Neferkare. Sorry.

WHERE IS POST OF THE DAY?

This joker comes in claiming to be African. Only to break into his Jerry Seinfeld comedy routine.



Thank you RLB, that was. . .frankly an insane response.

Who gives a damn if the NOI has to do with teletubbie culture? Not that I ever claimed it was "African". But you claimed it was a "Black" supremacist organization.

I said, that was nonsense.

Respond.

That is the way conversations work.



This mf is crazy.

But it is not our fault. Too many crazy mfs come here. And they are allowed to post and post and post.

They don't want anything but to destroy any hope of this forum being a haven for Africans.

Why? Here we are, the most maligned people in the history of this world and we have to put up with this crap.

@Dogon...........................


.



Anyway back to the topic, which part of this man isnt Pro-Black?

And why would Ali be considered non Pro BLack, as it relates to this thread? Unless I missed something, all of Ali's wives have been Black women. Even the one who most would consider having the most European blood, of all his wives, Veronica Ali, is as Black as any other sister, in mindset,behavior,loyalty, as is the daughter she bore and raised, Laila. So please enlighten us, cause u lost me.

And, if Ali did at some point date or marry non Black,(cause I don't sleep on none of ya'll Negroes, anything is possible and some bros seem to struggle with this issue MIGHTILY, no matter how much rah rah Pro Black bullshit they espouselol), he would have been contradicting his OWN stance on the matter, when he routinely dropped little gems like what is included in the following:

[15] In the documentary When We Were Kings, Ali is presented without a director's censorship. Many of the commentators mention that Ali could, oftentimes, be a very cruel individual. In this movie, we see no cruel parts of Ali. Goldberg says: "Mann has filed down all of Ali's razor-sharp edges to the bluntness of a boxing glove" (Goldberg 30). A lot of mild Ali quotes are in this movie, and Mann's Ali does show anger at times. The problem is that the anger is within politically safe and politically correct boundaries. Yet, Muhammad Ali did not operate within such boundaries. For example, Ali made no attempt to hide his belief in the separatist doctrine of the Nation of Islam. To one reporter, Ali expressed his view about blacks and whites engaging in romantic relationships. Ali once said: "A black man should be killed if he's messin' with a white woman." This is how strongly he felt about this separatist doctrine, but it is almost entirely neglected from the Mann film.


issue
issue

I always thought she was white bird, but i stand corrected(reluctantly seeing as its you doing the correcting) if she isnt.



Anyway her race aside, let me get this right, because this women didnt have a typical white mindset and gave birth to her mixed raced daughter, this would exclude Ali being with someone from another culture? What kinda double standard nonsense is that?

TheDogon
But it is not our fault. Too many crazy mfs come here. And they are allowed to post and post and post.

They don't want anything but to destroy any hope of this forum being a haven for Africans.

Why? Here we are, the most maligned people in the history of this world and we have to put up with this crap.

Is that a call for the 'mods' to delete some accounts 'DOG'? How vary sneeky of you.

Don't try to make this a 'them agaisnt us' issue, I know it's asking a lot, but please try to be a man and stand on your own two feet and sort you own mess out. This was a 'me against you' issue and the intent of my post is clear. I am not 'maligning' africans or africa, just your 'hippy' view of them/it

You need to stop being a little and embody a little 'zulu warrior spirt' but if you would rather take you 'feeling' hippy @ss off to make 'daisy chains' you feel free..... leave the 'practical' things to the real men!

P.S
I have emailed you my phone number.....if you 'feel' like it...give it to your girlfriend/wife. Should she ever find herself in trouble ie. 'there's a burglar in the house' tell her to give me a call and I'll come around and chaise him off for her.

P.P.S
Great speech 'Mr Pro Black warrior'! But wouldn't it of been more your style to just call me a 'jigaboo'?

Le Moor
Anyway her race aside, let me get this right, because this women didnt have a typical white mindset and gave birth to her mixed raced daughter, this would exclude Ali being with someone from another culture? What kinda double standard nonsense is that?

LOL!

It's riffe around here!

It's the same brand of double standards and bad thinking as this guy. Here's two of his vids. The first is 'anti IR'....fair enough to that, but his second vid a dedication to 'black women' is full of mixed race chicks....WTF!!



Anti Inter-Racial relationship vid :-

YouTube - Something that we need to understand

More colours than a large bag of M&M's vid :-

YouTube - FOR THE WOMEN OF MY RACE

(and what the hell up with the soundtrack????????)

what if that child promotes blackness when they grow up?
Just b/c you're African does not mean you are pro-African and just b/c you are w/someone who is not African, does not mean that you are NOT pro-African.

My father is white...I am an active part of the African Student Association at my university, I will be teaching school-aged children in Cameroon and providing community AIDS education for 2 years, after I graduate. My life-plan and goals greatly includes promoting "blackness" and the well-being of Africans and African people in general. I try not to participate in institutions that take advantage of my people, always buy fair trade on items being imported from Africa. I don't understand where most of you get off on "100% into 'the cause'". What the hell is 'the cause?'. I think it's simply to live life as a consciencious responsible individual who looks after their family, and their community. I can see how taking up w/someone outside of that community can interfere, but it doesn't mean that it HAS to interfere. Anyone who gives up 100% of themselves and their lives to something outside of just trying to live well for yourself and your loved ones because that's what they're "expected" to do, gravely missed the purpose of life.
I'm sorry, but I'm leaving the 100% to the activist hobbyists, the hypocritical politicians, and the fad-seekers. And what percent of that 100% of your promoting to the cause is merely being black and married black....there is so much more a person could and should do than those two things. I do not believe that being married to an African is an extensive qualifyer...there are plents of married black couples out there that don't give two s**ts about black promotion.

No one here said anything about anyone being pro-black just because they marry an black person. But there's definitely no such thing as a pro-black person being with someone who is not black. Sorry. And this doesn't apply to you anyway because you are mixed. You could go either way. Even if your mother claimed to be pro-black she truly would not be since she married a white man. This is not a racist statement. It's simply the truth.

okaaaay...what if I told you that my father was pro-African? What would you say then? What if she fell in love with my father because he shared her values concerning the African race?
My father, a white American from a teenager has been involved in African issues, addressed African issues, fought and worked for African issues. He lived in the Ivory Coast for 5 years and has had deep connections with friends and family there for 2/3 of his life. He wants to retire there so that my mother and he can be with her family.
There are non-blacks there that can connect with and empathize with African issues.

@ Afriki

Is that what you are telling us? That your mum married a white man because of his 'Pro-Africaness'? So was that a quality she was 'specifically' looking for in her life-mate?

Anyway, not wishing to delve too much into your mum's choice of mate, something that she is totally free to decide on and is no one else's business. However, let me ask you this. Suppose there was some issue where it was a case (for your father) of taking a course which was in 'blacks best interest' but less favourable to 'whites best interest' (such conflicts are not unrealistic). So your father, being Pro-African would take that course anyway?

How about his family - siblings, mum, dad, aunts, uncles etc. who would in all likelihood be against a course that is not in their interest? Is he that much 'Pro-African' that cutting off his wider family is a price he is prepared to pay for his 'beliefs'?
I am putting a hypothetical case to you I know, but we are talking very real issues of conflict which can arise in these situations.

Finally, on something that has been said time and time again (so I don't know why people keep making the same point). But, NO! merely marrying black, in of itself does not mean a person is Pro-Black.

If you read through the threads (well the ones on the main subject at any rate) you will see that no one is putting forward the proposition that marrying black, is' cast iron testimony to your 'Pro-Black' status, just that marring non-black, tends to conflict with your claim to "Being Pro-Black"

Respect