Leaderboard

. and even in science, there are no absolutes. Anything we claim to know today and be changed if proven otherwise. The truth of the matter is that we know so very little. Sure we know vastly more than we knew 300 years ago, but we knew almost nothing then beyond making weapons and growing crops. I would not be surprised if we knew more about the way the world works thousands of years ago than we know today, particularly as it deals with spirituality. I agree with Cynique that people should defend their convictions. But I also believe that these convictions must be subjected to tests where applicable, this is how improvement comes about. It is the same thing with Trump as president. People disagree on Trump's qualifications to be president. Tests or proofs to the contrary are meaningless, people are "religious" in the convictions (read: irrational). I do believe people by nature do not test their beliefs or subject what they to evaluation (the way we do here). It is just hard to have your ideas challenged and this is simply something most people do feel like doing. Plus people generally don't think deeply about many things--including themselves and their own motivations--this takes effort. For the religion, faith is all that is needed. indeed alternative perspectives are avoided and even violently eliminated. People might debate whether Lebron is better than Jordan, but it really does not get much deeper than that for most folks... @Delano, you might observe that they both wear number "23" and see a more profound significance and I might be perplexed at why we are spending so much money on professional basketball, making the owners fantastically wealthy it the expense of our community. To me the significance of Jordan being better than Lebron is as significant to me as your preference of pie over cake... Now why do I think that way? Largely, I suspect, it is a result of running a small business selling books.

Well, the latest controversy lighting up the media once again deals with the word whose power knows no bounds! No sooner has LeBron James appeared before the cameras to lament how no black man is immune to being called a nigger, than HBO talk show host Bill Maher takes the spotlight by inadvertantly referring to himself as a "house nigger" when the republican Senator from Nebraska he was interviewing, invited Maher to come work in the fields of his state. Everybody has an opinion about this and Maher who is considered a progressive and who put his money where his mouth was in donating 1,000,000 dollars to Obama's treasure chest, - and who is rumored to have a black girlfriend, has naturally apologized and many have noted that he didn't call a black person by the n-word but instead co-opted it in referring to himself as a "house nigga". i'm not gonna sweat Bill Maher because he has on any number of occasion honestly poked fun at himself for benefiting from white privilege and the racism inherent in this . And lately he has really shot down the Trump administration and chastised the wimpy Democrats and Liberals, making points that i agree with. I also agree with him about many other issues involving this country's worship of comic book superheroes and bratty kids reeking with a sense of entitlement, and the myth and hypocrisy of religion. So i forgive him and am glad HBO has no intention of firing him. I also agree with those who give comedians a pass when they push the envelop in order to provoke and deliver messages that require us to laugh at our foibles. i like edgy satirical comedy. People could cite me about resenting white folks using "nigger" when i, myself, use the world "nigga". To me, there is just a difference. "Nigga" is of the black street vernacular and is unique in that is just rolls off your tongue and has so many intricate nuances in its varied usage, all of which make it the sole possession of black folks. The term "nigger" is a hard word , one that literally requires your face to sneer when you use it, and white folks have perfected the art of infusing it with contempt. I also think blacks are just as guilty of empowering the word as whites are. But, that's just me.

@Delano, I've seen both the Dance Theater of Harlem and Alvin Alley. While I'm not an avid support of dance, I've attended quite a few performances and have even made contributions. @Cynique I know I don't confuse disagreement with a lack of appreciation. More importantly, I and many others I'm sure, have been thoroughly enriched by your presence here. I only wish that even more people benefit from your wisdom and skill as a writer. Here is my prediction: In the not too distant future, when people tire of corporate control of the platforms in which they engage with each other, they will return to to indie platforms. When that happens Cynique's Corner will become a very popular discussion forum. People will read you wisdom, humor, and cynism and regret not participating sooner.

Douglass also divorced his black wife and married a white women, but his black wife was apparently okay with this because at some point all 3 of them lived together in the same house. A good ol sista putting her man's needs before her own??

@Delano, Yes, Alvin Ailey and Arthur Mitchell are inspiring and their support through the arts created avenues for talented black women that were previously closed to them. These two used their male privilege to open up a venue for black women to shine in an area that was previously closed to them. I didn't even realize they were gay - so that means not only did they fight for their rights quietly - they also fought to have black women "center stage". Thank you. By the way, there's another black man in history that was a supporter of women's rights. Frederick Douglass. I gave him the side-eye though because he asked the suffragettes to stop fighting for their right to vote, to help black men get the vote. smh

You get high marks for your sincerity, Troy. Let me just say, black men love their mothers. Probably their sisters. Most assuredly their daughters. But the one area where they have fallen short and which how, time and time again, when so many of the brightest and best of them raise the hopes of black women ready to stand by their side or accept their support, is the disappointment that occurs when their black heroes turn out to be married to white women. This has always been considered the ultimate betrayal, whether it is a justified perception or not. Of course there are millions of exceptions to this pattern, but it remains a specter in the relationship between black men and women. it has nothing to do with social media. It is something that is ingrained in the slave mentality as it exists in modern society. Black women shared the burden with their men and strove to hold the family together but that was all they were good for and what their role was. What better reward for a black man's struggle and achievements than the ultimate prize that all men desire: a white woman. If black women could be elevated to this level, this would bolster their collective morale and improve their collective image.This is not something that black men can bring about because they have no influence. Black women have to wage this battle alone, armed with self love.

@DelanoPeople should have the "courage of their convictions" whether they are tested or not, because they are ideas we hypothetically believe in. Some convictions are best not tested because the consequences could be dangerous or even fatal. Especially if they involve the "by any means necessary" sentiment when trying to eliminate a perceived threat. Assumptions very often take the form of examples or are anecdotal rather than factual but they help in trying to advance one's point in a discussion. As you know, there are very few absolutes except in math or science.

@Cynique, sure I agree with you regarding their desire to appear on the cover of Time. The point I was trying to support is that Time really is not interested in uplifting Black people or women. @Mel Hopkins, It would not be reasonable for me to argue about the enslavement of Black people in the U.S. prior to 1865, but I will share this with you and others who may be reading conversation; Sure there were some "free" Black women in the US prior to the Emancipation Proclamation and the Proclamaintion only free the slaves in the southern slave states fighting against the Union, but historians generally agree that it lead to the abolition for all enslaved people in the United States culminating in the passing of the 13th Amendment, which made slavery illegal in 1865. I argue is one thing that Lincoln did is vastly more important than everything that Obama did, not just for Black women, for the entire country. “I never, in my life, felt more certain that I was doing right, than I do in signing this paper ...If my name ever goes into history it will be for this act, and my whole soul is in it." —President Lincoln “Some man who seemed to be a stranger (a United States officer, I presume) made a little speech and then read a rather long paper—the Emancipation Proclamation, I think. After the reading we were told that we were all free, and could go when and where we pleased. My mother, who was standing by my side, leaned over and kissed her children, while tears of joy ran down her cheeks. She explained to us what it all meant, that this was the day for which she had been so long praying, but fearing that she would never live to see." —Booker T. Washington “When you are dead and in Heaven, in a thousand years that action of yours will make the Angels sing your praises." —Hannah Johnson, mother of a Northern Black soldier, writing to President Abraham Lincoln about the Emancipation Proclamation, July 31, 1863 I think Hannah Johnson would, were she alive today, be perplexed by our conversations on this issue. But again arguing the relative merits of this action makes little sense... Mel, I'm also profoundly saddened to read your statement, "Black men, as a whole, don't give a lick about black women." I sure it is not a sentiment shared by the Brothers participating in this conversation and it is definitely now a sentiment demonstrated by our individual behavior. This conversation, and the one about Viola's picture, that prompted it was initiated to illustrate a diss to Black women. In the case of Beyonce's cover, many Black feminists also agree with the points I've made (albeit some more strongly than others). My starting this conversation does not come from a place of disdain for Black women, but from one of love. This honestly is one reason why I've opted out of social media two years ago, and am considering doing the same for my business. If one subject one's self to this media they will be inundated with messages both subliminal and overt which denigrate Black people. So, it is very understandable why some can believe that "Black men, as a whole, don't give a lick about black women." In my circles, which are more typical that the media would have you believe. Black men fight hard to uplift and support both Black women and the Black community. Most of us go unheralded and ignored by social media (which has become mainstream). This is by design. You see, pushing positive images by Black people who are not celebrities nd who are doing positive things is not as profitable, as covering Black dysfunction and celebrities (combine dysfunction and celebrity and you are golden!) Even when mainstream media do celebrate the accomplishments of celebrities it is often done with a slight. Obviously, some of are more aware, or in tune, to these slights than others. Pointing out these perceived slights of our women is not an indication of not giving "a lick about black women" it is, again, an indication of love.

@Pioneer1 You're so in love with Farrakhan maybe you should have your credentials checked. You continue to aggrandize him and sing his praises but have yet to reinforce your extravagant claims with anything other than one puny example of the "countless" women he has uplifted to - the level of still being under the thumb of their menfolk, including their domineering patron, Farrakhan. Accept the fact that i do not share your slavish devotion to this religious chauvinist, and dry your tears. What did i say that would lead you to believe that i love Alvin Ailey? As opposed to you who can't gush enough adoration for Farrakhan. Accomplished, sensitive gay men who create opportunities for women are just as worthy of being credited as self-serving masculine ones who exploit women to make themselves look good.

@Pioneer1Why do you keep asking these silly questions? My distaste for this country has nothing to do with my fondness for my friends. i am able to separate the person from the place, even if you apparently cannot.

Contemporary Black BiographyContemporary Black BiographyThe Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th ed. Mitchell, Arthur Contemporary Black Biography COPYRIGHT 2005 Thomson Gale Arthur Mitchell 1934— Choreographer, dancer Members of the Dance Theatre of Harlem call Arthur Mitchell the "Pied Piper of Dance." Mitchell, one of the first blacks to succeed in the field of classical ballet, founded the Dance Theatre of Harlem in 1969 in an effort to provide minority students with a chance to learn and perform classical ballet. He has been leading the troupe ever since and has presided over an extensive ballet school, worldwide tours, and performances of both classical and modern dance. Boston Globecontributor Christine Temin called Mitchell "a preacher of sorts," an artist whose "gospel is one of discipline, hard work, education, goals set and then met. His own goal, of course, was to show that blacks could dance classical ballet. He realized that aim with his Dance Theatre of Harlem, now famous for its energy, purity of style, dedicated dancers and diverse repertory." Since its founding, Mitchell's Dance Theatre of Harlem has included a school educating hundreds of would-be dancers, as well as a group of professionals—graduates of the school—who perform. The school is located in Harlem and draws many of its pupils from that struggling neighborhood. Many are on scholarship, and all are encouraged to pursue a well-rounded education. Mitchell told the Philadelphia Inquirer that his goal is to use dance "to build better human beings." He added: "The young people today, particularly minority kids and inner-city kids, they need some kind of motivation as well as compassion. We live in a very technological society. Very few people are spending time to develop the soul." Mitchell was in a taxicab on his way to the airport in 1968 when he heard over the radio that Martin Luther King Jr. had been assassinated in Memphis. The news stunned Mitchell, and it proved a turning point in his career. He had planned to continue his work with the National Ballet Company of Brazil, which he had established two years earlier. Instead, he told the cab driver to turn around and head back into Harlem. Mitchell told the San Jose Mercury News:"After hearing of King's death, I came back to Harlem and set up a dance school in a garage. Nobody said I could do it. I started with 30 kids and two dancers, and inside of four months I had 400 kids."rs. Then we wanted to take that company of black dancers and showcase them in the city, the country, the world, to show people what black artists could do. We did that." The founders of the Alvin Ailey and Dance Theatre of Harlem . That's my two. My guess is at least half the troupe are women. @Mel Hopkins

Arthur Mitchell founded the Dance Theatre of Harlem.

@Pioneer1 I'm not holding my breath. We'll be fine. Too bad in the year 2017 it's necessary for you to send such a message. At my age, i'll leave the optimism to Mel who keeps hope alive. Thanks for your words of "encouragement". @Delano Alvin Ailey is worth mentioning. He has given hundreds of black women a stage for their dancing talents which include classical ballet a field where they had not previously been show cased. I'm not familiar with the other name you offered.

At the heart of this "victimization" is Western culture and it's Judeo-Christian religious foundation that continues to re-enforce the belief that these groups who are victimized somehow deserve it or are divinely ordained to be subjegated. Blacks are oppressed out of the belief that they are descend from Ham whose descendants were cursed to be slaves. Women are oppressed out of the belief that they are responsible for the original sin and caused the downfall of man and cursed to be under the thumbs of their husbands. Homosexuals are oppressed out of the belief that the Old Testemant condemns homosexual activity and threatens it with death. The poor are oppressed out of MANY beliefs. Among them, because slavery was permitted in the Old Testament. The New Testament advises slaves to obey their masters. Others believe that people are poor because of bad karma. Others point to the scripture in which Jesus says the poor you will always have. These discriminatory beliefs are ingrained in the heart of Western society and whether they claim to be born again Christians or atheists, most Westerners....especially White Westerners adhere to these beliefs subconsciously. Most of the legal codes and social rules in Western civilization whether it be the United States, Canada, Europe, Russia, or even Australia....hail from these original beliefs and more.

Alvin Ailey Arthur Mitchell