Pioneer1

Ofcourse they are different, but they are both referred to as "middle class", especially in the political arena. You ask any bus driver, police officer, or skilled laborer do they consider themselves poor or part of the middle class and listen to what they'll tell you.

Alternatives that are inferior shouldn't be considered alternatives at all. It's like telling someone who's ship has sailed off to Europe without them that an"alternative" is to swim....lol Again, do you know of any VIABLE alternatives...meaning a nation, culture, or religion that can effectively challenge and overtake White Supremacy AND provide a better lifestyle for those living under it?

As of right now, I'm just asking the question......WHERE is the alternative? What nation, culture, or religion that you know of can effectively challenge and overtake so-called "Western" culture AND provide a more comfortable lifestyle for it's adherents?

But WORKING CLASS (which includes the blue collar ) is indeed in the middle of poverty and wealth....which technically makes it just as much a "middle class" as the Professional Class which is also wedged between poverty and wealth.

Troy The problem is that it is hard to operate in our current system where the greedier you are the more you are rewarded. The more you can destroy you "competition" the better you are perceived. If you company can grow more profits buy paying works less -- it is all good. Black people will continue to be influenced by what you describe as "caucasian economics" because this is the yardstick that we measure ourselves. This has never served us, but I don't see it changing anytime soon. When the whole system collapses (it is not likely any of us will be around when it happens), perhaps then we will see productive change. 　 I think the key is to have a BALANCE. I've lived near areas where the "swim or sink" mentality ruled and everyone looked out for themselves or their own interests. And I've also lived in so-called liberal areas on the West Coast where most people believe in "aultruism" and sharing everything. Neither extreme serves our people well because both are too broadbased and not detailed enough to address so many of the needs of individual AfroAmericans with our many varying backgrounds and circumstance. We need enough socialism to make sure no one starves to death and everyone gets proper medical treament; but we also need enough capitalism to punish stagnation and laziness among those prone too it as well as reward hard work and innovation. 　 Cynique White supremacy endures and it's debateable as to why this is the case. There isn't much to debate...... Where is the viable ALTERNTIVE to White supremacy on this planet today?

Troy Keep in mind that the term "middle class" also includes the working class at it's lower end. Given the fact that in order to be a CO you must pass a background check and have a psychological evaluation, which means the vast majority of female COs must have a stable criminal free background. Unless you're suggesting that a large chunk of females COs are pulled from the ranks of the homeless and welfare recipients....where else are they coming from except the middle classes?

I agree with those definitions for the purpose of this discussion. Let me say that I won't out right disagree with your position because I haven't done enough research on the subject to clearly prove you're wrong. However I would like to CHALLENGE it. You said less educated are MORE prone to violence; which implies that more educated people are LESS violent. And according to your definition education is: "The process of acquiring knowledge and learning how to apply it. This can be done through formal education and training or independently. " If those with formal training are less violent than those without any, then that would mean professionaly trained police officers and military service men should be LESS VIOLENT than the average civilian with only a highschool education or less but no professional training. But we know that professionally trained and often college educated police officers and military service men typically engage in and in many cases actually initiate far more violence than those without their education.

In another thread, Troy suggested that less educated people are more prone to violence. The first thing we need to do is DEFINE the terms EDUCATION and VIOLENCE. Troy, what is your definition or understanding of EDUCATION and what is your definition or understanding of VIOLENCE?

What you see with people being nice, generous, and heavily family and community oriented IS NOT unique to Asian culture what so ever. Most African and Native American cultures USED TO be just as refined and comforting until they were conquered and subjegated by Caucasians and forced into a different lifestyle. Infact, Asians can be quite cold and hostile also when they are put in the right circumstances. The difference is because there are so many Asians and they have so much more control over their nations and societies than African and Native Americans people's do right now......they have a better opportunity to exhibit more of their true nature and express who they really are. You don't have to go too far back in history, just 4 or 5 generations ago Black people in the United States were known to be far more generous, morally upright, and family oriented than even Asians today. What changed was being forced more and more into White dominated society which forces so many Black people to go against their nature and adopt foreign habits to survive or be successful. When Black people are no longer influenced by Caucasian economics, religious dogma, social norms, and diet......we will be far more generous, peaceful, and exponetially more productive than we are in our current state.

Del The majority of domestic violence incidents involve a person being under the influence of alcohol. Not only is this a great point...alcohol abuse and related violence cuts across all socio-economic lines. Perhaps the only difference is wealthier more educated people have the money and other resources to cover up their crimes and bribe the victims. Prisons create a stable work force Do you mean by extracting labor from the prisoners? Troy if you want to believe that Phds are just as likely to commit crimes as a highschool drop out and that there are no differences between to the two people, then carry on. The very well MAY be just as likely to commit crimes.....just not the same TYPE of crimes as a less lettered man. Whereas the uneducated man engages in petty crimes of larceny or prostitution.....the highly educated man engages in bank fraud, embezzlment, and other white collar criminal activites. I haven't gotten a response from you about that experiment....lol. If it's your argument and conviction that education makes men less violence and less prone to physically reactions from mere insults.....why don't you go to highly educated Black men and insult their mothers or children and record the results. Right now that is just theory...... But this experiment will provide EVIDENCE.

I always wondered what goes on in the minds of some women that they seem to find the craziest most disturbed men attractive. So much so that a lot of serial killers and mass murderer in prison get thousands of love letters and proposal for marriage. Now you have female guards and corrections officers risking their jobs (not to mention their safety) willing to hop in the sack with these dudes. Some of these women are married with children and come from stable middle class backgrounds, yet the attraction to these men seem to overwhelm them for some reason. I suspect it has something to do with the biological urge of some women to get with men who they feel are violent enough or crazy enough to do whatever it takes to protect them. But clearly all women in all cultures don't share this desire because when I look at the Asian community it seems that Asian women ARE NOT attracted to violent or crazy men but seem to lean more toward the passive and stable types.

Troy and Delano If you two want to prove a point about how easily insults of your loved ones can be brushed off, instead of telling "mama jokes"...why don't you talk about eachothers CHILDREN! And let's see how far THAT would get. Two friends who have known eachother for years joking about eachother's mothers can't be compared to two strangers arguing with eachother and one talks about the other's mother in a fit of rage. The spirit and intent is ENTIRELY different. Troy You keep shifting the weight and moving the focus every time your point is disproven...... You first said that uneducated or less educated people are more willing to engage in violence with the slightest provocation. When Delano correctly (actually he beat me to the punch) pointed out how some of the most educated people in the world in the form of presidents and other global leaders have been the main ones starting wars.....you then say that only uneducated people fight and get violent over mere words. And when it is again pointed out that most wars beging when words are no longer effective in solving the conflict. Now you're saying it's all about the INDIVIDUAL and not warring nations willing to fight over words. If you think the only type of Black man who will fight you over insulting his mother is an UNEDUCATED one.....then try a little experiment: Go back to the univesity you teach at and find atleast 10 Black male professors and/or staff members with Master's degrees or higher and insult their mothers and see how many of them get physical with you and how many of them brush it off.....lol. That would be a REAL scientific experiment. Social science. Infact, why don't you RECORD IT on your celly and post the reactions on here....lol.

Cynique I don't who that is in the picture he posted and so blatantly lied about WTF??? Lol.... Are you SERIOUSLY going to sit up there with a straight face and glasses on tand tell everyone that that is NOT you and that you DID NOT send me that picture along with a few "private words" to go with it??? Ok.... Whatever You're right, I'm making it all up....lol. 　 Speaking of blatant liars........ 　 Krazy Alexander II Glad to see you're back! I know you had to take a few days off after Del EMBARASSED you by exposing you as a staight up PLAGIARIZER. It took you a while to re-cover and re-group from that one.....lol.

@Chevdove Sometimes I don't see your responses. Why don't you "tag"? Probably for the same reasons I almost never use the "like" and "thanks" features at the bottom of posts....lol. It's just not my style. But I definately appreciate your words. Like you, I've done years of research (informal) on religion and history and I like sharing the knowledge and information (and there's a difference) that I've gathered over the years. Infact, the research I've done both religion and history is credited with pushing me AWAY from organized religion and bringing me CLOSER to spirituality and a better understanding of traditional indigenous belief systems.

OK ....if that's what you're going with. I just think it's dangerous to toss around blanketed names like "loser" and attach them to people you know very little about.....including their character or the circumstances that put them in the positions they're in. You want to call the men incarcerated in an IN-justice system as "losers" when in reality most of them didn't lose....they were CHEATED in a rigged system. You talk about how it's fluid and being a loser doesn't have to be a permanent condition, but every psychologist knows the damage putting negative lables on children can do to their self esteem which can affect their behavior. If you call a child who is doing poorly in school a "little loser" and call them that repeatedly, with their self esteem and self worth damaged.... how likely are they to "over come" whatever caused them to "lose" in the first place? Again, WE need to be careful just tossing these blanketed statements around..... WE need to first think about what effect our statements will have on the subjects/victims of those statements, and then what effect will they have on our community as a whole. Constructive criticizm is often necessary, but just calling people "losers" without mapping out a plan to uplift them and improve their lives is counter-productive.

Cynique I know nothing about you, your name or where you are located, - thanks to your obsession with anonymity, there's no way i could or would send pictures to something like you. So dream on, loser. You're the joke. Barf! You call me a loser. You probably wish I'd "lose" those pictures I have of you and him (and the others).....lol. Now here's PART of one of the pictures: Are you trying to tell me that this ISN'T you...and you DIDN'T send it to me? Are you SERIOUSLY trying to tell us that??????

Troy I was "clowning" on you a little bit with that statement.....lol. I'll agree with what you said about less educated people using violence more only because less educated people tend to be poorer, and again...there's a direct link between crime and poverty. But I don't think education is the key factor in making people less violent. As Del pointed out already, most of the wars in history were started by well educated Presidents, Generals, Kings, and other societal leaders. As far as me personally........ I'm not sure where you got THAT impression.....lol. If I believed in using violence to solve every personal conflict I wouldn't have made it past 25 years of age in this society. Perhas you took what I said to Cynique about a man "taking down" those who talked about his mother and "fighting the good fight" as in PHYSICAL take downs and fighting -that's not what I meant. Certainly if a man were to insult my Mother to my face, they would more than likely get a PHYSICAL reaction from me; but in general and especially online I'm talking about fighting with a war of words and ideaology.

Cynique Lol, I'm not sure why you had to get all NASTY with it but again....... Your definition isn't too exact, it's too blanketed and vague. While you claim that YOUR definition (not the three that you just provided which are TOTALLY DIFFERENT than what you were saying earlier) is not meant to declare a loser "good" or "bad" ; it's still renders an unfair judgement upon people because it doesn't take into account the ENTIRE PICTURE of their lives. Again...... You called slaves and disabled people who couldn't overcome their disability LOSERS. And again....... While those conditions certainly aren't ideal and most people who are in them those conditions would surely change them if they could....they may have other qualities and accomplishments going on in their lives that OUT WEIGH their misfortunes. And my problem with YOUR definition of a loser is that it fails to take those other qualities and accompishments into account. The fact is, EVERYONE is a combination of both a winner and loser to various degrees. Some win more than lose, others lose more than win.....all in different areas. We must be careful with tossing around these vague and blanketed statements.

Cynique I never said anything about you being "weak" or "soft". I concluded that since this exchange between you and Kalexander took place on-line, there was nothing you could do about his ridiculous comments and this included extracting an apology from him, but that you could nullify his remarks by simply blowing them off and moving on. That seems to be what he did in regard to what he considered insults that you hurled at him No you haven't. However both you and Troy seem to believe that my REACTION to K2's insults are just as bad as K2's insults and by not "ignoring" him that somehow made me less mature or dignified. In my opinion it should be the other way around...... If I see someone insult a Black man's mother...a good Black woman....I would CHEER for that man to be stood up to and taken down. I wouldn't tell the brother to just "ignore" him. I'd encourage the brother to fight the good fight and condemn the offender for acting out of order. But that's just me.... Troy There was a study that showed less educated people get more upset by perceived slight than more educated people do. They are measurably more upset. They want to fight if you talk about their mother or accidentally step on their sneakers. These people will literally murder you if you cut them off in traffic. I can't remember where I read this, but there was also something else related about the "honor culture." It is the same reasoning that got all the poor uneducated white people to shoot each other to death during the Civil War. Yeaaaa??? Well guess what, I read somewhere that highly educated people....especially those who grew up in New York....chose to further their education for the sole reason that they weren't good at fighting and figured it would be a good way to avoid conflict...LOL. Now I forgot where I read that at....LOL.....but it was probably in a book that was sitting next to the same book YOU were reading. What you read sounds like an observation of Alexis Tocqueville during his journey through out America. I'm not sure about the less educated part in specific, but less educated people tend to be poorer and their a link between poverty and crime. People with money tend to fight with lawyers and punish their enemies legally; whereas most people who are poor can't afford lawyers and don't have the time or resources to drag things out for years in court so they tend to settle personal issues PERSONALLY....often time with violence or direct confrontation. But another issue is stress and that causes a lot of people to "go off" despite their educational status. And all classes of people outside of the very rich seem to be under more stress today than they were 30 years ago. Del There can be no unity without respect. Absolutely! Which is one of the reasons I think we as a community need to NAIL DOWN EXACTLY what constitutes as disrespect and what is unacceptable. As I've said many times before, AfroAmericans don't really have a set CULTURE and because of this our community is in a state of confusion where everyone has different values and opinions of what is good and bad or acceptable and unacceptable. We need atleast a basic understanding and agreement as a people of atleast basic civility.

I may be laughing out loud.....LOL....but who said I was "joking" about you - him -and those scandalous pictures -???? BTW....it appears that the problem has returned with the profiles being merged and mixed up.

Mel @Troy and @Pioneer1 it seems as if both of you agree - which really puts the onus on mainstream media. They are exposed - no longer can they feed "educated" and "experienced" folks bullshit ... and expect us to swallow it. Dr. Wade Nobles said that power was the ability to define reality and have others accept it. Most people around the world will deny what they SEE with their very eyes, only to accept what they are TOLD on television. I think if people started letting thier own observations and experiences educate them as much as possible instead of relying soley on what they see on television or even what they may read in a book....the vast majority of the world's problems would be solved in less than one years time. Like you said earlier, it's better to actually VISIT people places and see for yourself instead of just reading about them.....you come with an entirely different and more wholesome perspective.

Cynique Woman, you're CRAZY as hell.....lol. It's one thing to be cynical. It's another thing to be cruel and crazy. I think you've been talking to Krazy Alexander a little too much now. I'm beginning to wonder was it a mistake to encourage more dialog between you two....lol. I don't believe anyone is a total winner or total loser. To call someone a winner or loser is like calling them superior or inferior.....you have to first define the SUBJECT in which you're calling them a winning/losing in. Superior in WHAT? golf, writing, diving,..... Inferior in WHAT? cooking, academics, sports...... A winner in WHAT? dating, fighting.... A loser in WHAT? buying houses, racing cars...... What have the lost in? Some people may be losing financially, but winning in health. Other's may be billionaires but losers when it comes to relationships. A woman may be considered a loser by you because she's a slave...but if she's in the HOUSE and getting all types of treats from her master she may consider herself a WINNER, especially compared to the other slaves and if she ends up living to be 104 with 35 great grandchildren....is she still a loser even though she's a slave? A person with no legs and in a wheel chair may be a multi-millionaire who is a great conductor with a wife and children. Would you consider him a loser even though he didn't overcome the fact that he couldn't walk? Futher, in my opinion in order for someone to qualify as a loser in any field they have to have lost REPEATEDLY. Losing one time or in one thing...doesn't necessarily make you a loser any more than telling one lie makes you a liar or stealing one thing makes you a thief. The action has to be repetative....and again, the subject in which they're losing in should always be attached....e.i.. "loser at finances" or "loser in relationships"...ect. Your definition is too blanket and simplistic in my opinion.

Cynique & K2 If you think it's "weak" or "soft" for a man to get highly offended when his mother is insulted I'm going to have to SERIOUSLY question how many Black men you two have actually been around. Even WHITE MEN know not to talk about a Black man's mama unless you're suicidal or just looking for a fight....how did YALL end up missing the memo???? It doesn't matter if someone is trying to push your buttons or not, it's about principle. If you're walking down the street with your daughter and someone walks up, points at her, grins, and says she's gonna be a "little ho" when she grows up- What are you gonna do; get mad and fight? Or assume they're just trying to "push your buttons" and walk away grinning thinking you won while you're daughter looks at you confused as to why you didn't react? Troy I'm not sure what he's been asking you to do with regard to ME, but I'm not asking that he be banned....because then he wouldn't be able to apologize, lol. Standing before the community holding his head down and admitting how silly and childish "we" were is not an apology NOR do I even believe it's sincere in his case. It reminds me of Jimmy Swaggart going before his churchcrying with snot running down his nose talking about he "sinned against them"...lol. If you're truly sorry and ashamed of your behavior then APOLOGIZE and that will be more evidence of sincerity. Anything else is just patronizing people. As far as Sara..... It's difficult to say because everyone has different moral standards. I operated a website with a message board briefly years ago I didn't have to ban anyone but it was only up for about 7 or 8 months. My rules were simple and clear and as long as no one violated them people could say whatever no matter how outrageous or obnoxious. In the case with that site, the problem weren't the posters but with the MODERATORS....lol. That's when I really learned a lesson that not only can't everyone handle power but MOST PEOPLE can't handle power responsibily. Between working full time and trying to get an organization going I didn't have time to just sit and monitor the site myself. I barely had time to even post upcoming events and answer questions which was what I started the site and discussion board for in the first place. So I called myself choosing moderators based on intelligence and maturity but as soon as they got into arguments with people some of them would delete embarassing respons They did more participating than moderating and one had a habit of deleting people's reponses if they got the best of him in an argument....LOL. Also, although my instructions of what to delete or warn people about were CRYSTAL CLEAR....they kept on making judgements based on their OWN beliefs of what was right or wrong based on their religious concepts or what their parents taught them on how people should treat eachother. After failing to properly delegate power on the board, I decided to just shut it down and use the sight to promote upcoming events. I learned many lessons about people and power though. But whether Sara actually went to far or not....I think there should be CLEAR RULES in the Black community over what should and shouldn't be tolerated and it should be part of our culture so as to leave little room for misunderstanding. As I said above, I thought it was almost common sense among most people.....especially in the generations over 30....to not talk about a Black man's mother unless you were looking for a fight. When did that change? Where can you go and talk about a Black man's mother in real life and expect to just walk away in peace?

You mean there's ANOTHER ONE (besides the ones you sent me....lol) floating around ????? Well, I hope your 89 year old "boy toy" isn't naked and dancing in the background in THAT one, like he was on half the others........lol.

Troy You're arguing with me over how stupid a term is that I didn't even create? I didn't invent the term. Like you said, White people invented the term "Middle East"....tell THEM that Egypt and Libya is in Africa and not me....lol. As far as Morocco goes....... Perhaps I AM wrong about it but I've heard it being described as Middle Eastern before regardless as to how erroneous and stupid it may SOUND. I know you don't care too much for using Wikipedia as a source but when it comes to definitions they are good at going into the history of terms and words and under "other definitions of the Middle East" we read: "Various concepts are often being paralleled to Middle East, most notably Near East, Fertile Crescent and the Levant. Near East, Levant and Fertile Crescent are geographic concepts, which refer to large sections of the modern defined Middle East, with Near East being the closest to Middle East in its geographic meaning. Due to it primarily being Arabic speaking, the Maghreb region of North Africa is sometimes included." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East Maghreb is pretty much what the Arabs called all of North Africa west of Egypt. Also, I've seen Moroccan restaurants being refered to as "Middle Eastern" foods. Like I said, I didn't invent the term so don't get mad at me man....lol. The next time CNN or ABC refers to Egypt or Libya or some other African nation as "Middle Eastern" you may want to send them and e-mail correcting them, lol. 　 　 Chevdove Actually, uhm, I absolutely remember reading somewhere that the international leagues in the Western nations did change the maps around some point in 1947 when they recarved the maps for the Jews in Europe to go back to 'the Middle East' and, I vaguely do remember that, believe it or not, yes, MOROCCO was included in on their geographical definition of 'THE MIDDLE EAST'. I think it does have something to do with the Arabs, Islam, and the muslims. yes, I think @Pioneer1 maybe right here. I just remember when I read something along those lines, I was amazed that they were defining parts of North Africa, all the way west as 'the Middle East' Thank you. I've heard people refer to Morocco and even all of North Africa as the "Middle East" because of it's Arabic culture. But like i said, I'm not fond of arguing over terms I didn't create. I love it! This so wonderfully stated. However, with respect to the 'giants' I don't believe that they were all 'this' or all 'that', or all negative or all positive. It is my belief that the "giants" spoken of in the Bible is just the terms that Caucasians used for the earlier Black races that existed in those regions before they invaded. We know that Black civilizations that were more advanced with better diet and higher knowledge lived in those regions and when the smaller and more ignorant Caucasians came into contact with these people they were intimidated and refered to them as giants. If we look at the Masai and Dinka of Kenya and Sudan we STILL find very tall well built Black men and women who probably occupied much of that region before the Caucasian races drove them out. So yes, just like you have good and bad Black people today....you had good and bad Black people back in those days. But when Caucasians came with their new religions, they had to PORTRAY them as evil and wicked and abomnible in order to have an excuse to kill them and drive them out. 　 That is the issue here, some statements are 'myth' and I believe that over the years, the sound proof to confirm history is a tool(s) that we can not use or do not possess to verify history as being totally true or not. You're absolutely correct! A myth is a SYMBOLIC STORY that is designed to conceal the truth. With the right codes you can UNLOCK that truth that the myth contains. I believe the story of Noah's ark was a MYTH that contained the TRUTH of Caucasians coming down out of the Caucasus mountains and spreading out over the region. Mr. Ararat which the Ark allegedly landed on is located in the Caucasus mountains and his children and grandchildren spreading in different directions is the same as how the Caucasians spread out from the Caucasus mountains to found various civilizations.